Articles Tagged with Private Funds

Published on:

By

U.S. Investment advisers, other financial services providers, and pooled investment vehicles – private and public funds – involved in certain cross-border transactions must file.

Background

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (“BEA”) is conducting its next five-year “Benchmark Survey of U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons” on Form BE-180. The survey is mandatory and collects data on cross-border trade and financial services transactions of U.S. financial services providers, including investment advisers and other asset managers, broker-dealers and banks. BE-180 covers cross-border purchase and sales transactions that occurred or were charged during the U.S. reporter’s 2014 fiscal year. BE-180 is one of a series of benchmark surveys[1] measuring international trade transactions and collecting data for use in various economic studies.

Who Is Required to Report

Each U.S. individual and entity that is a “financial services provider” and meets the reporting requirements must file form BE-180. Financial services providers include investment advisers and their pooled vehicles such as hedge funds, private equity funds, pension funds, mutual funds and real estate funds, and broker-dealers.[2]

Filing Thresholds

The reporting requirement applies to each U.S. individual or entity that is a financial services provider with (i) either[3] sales or purchases directly with non-U.S. individuals or entities in excess of $3 million or more on a consolidated basis during the 2014 fiscal year, or (ii) sales or purchases directly with non-U.S. individuals or entities of less than $3 million, that were notified by the BEA about the survey. Any U.S. individual or entity that is notified by the BEA about the survey but has no transactions of the types of services covered must complete pages 1-3 of the survey.

Reportable Transactions

Reportable financial transactions include investment management and advisory services, brokerage services, underwriting, custodial services, credit-related services, securities lending, and electronic funds transfer services – transactions involving cross-border payments, such as advisory or sub-advisory fees, brokerage commissions, custodial fees and securities lending fees.

Reportable data include the transactional counterparty’s location by country and the relationship between the U.S. reporter and its counterparty (i.e., foreign affiliates or unaffiliated foreign persons). You may have easy access to some of the required data (such as through your administrator or internal accounting systems). However, as with the other BE forms, obtaining some of the required information may involve additional legwork and cooperation with cross-border counterparties, which should be considered in meeting the deadlines.

Filing Deadline and Extensions

The BEA has granted automatic extensions to the original October 1 filing deadline, as follows:

File no later than November 1, 2015 if:

  • You were notified of the BE-180 survey by BEA and have a BE-180 identification number below 140012490.
  • You were NOT notified of the BE-180 survey by BEA and do NOT have a BE-180 identification number.

File no later than December 1, 2015 if:

  • You were notified of the BE-180 survey by BEA and have a BE-180 identification number above 140012490.

Additional extensions to each filing deadline will be granted by the BEA if a request is submitted by November 1, 2015 as instructed by the BEA.

Penalties

Failure to file a required report can lead to civil and criminal penalties.

Confidential Treatment

Like it is the case with the other BE forms, information reported on BE-180 is confidential and may be used for only analytical or statistical purposes.

Sources

Form BE-180 is available online here.

Instructions for new filers are available here.

Form instructions are available here.

FAQs regarding the BE-180 benchmark survey are available here.

___________________

[1] See our alerts and articles on other BEA survey forms here.

[2] Additional entities included in the definition are commercial banking entities, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, savings institutions, check cashing and debit card issuing entities, underwriters, investment bankers, providers of securities custody services, insurance carriers, insurance agents, insurance brokers, and insurance services providers.

[3] The $3 million threshold applies to purchases and sales separately, and must be reported on separate schedules to the BE-180. Consequently, a U.S. reporter, for example, that only exceeds the threshold for sales but does not reach the threshold for purchases, is only required to complete the schedule relating to sales.

Published on:

By

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 25, 2015 which, among other things, would add SEC-registered investment advisers to the “financial institutions” regulated under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This represents another step by the U.S. government to expand the professions and industries deemed anti-money laundering (AML) gatekeepers. Covered investment advisers will face new AML program, reporting and record-keeping requirements, with implications for hedge, private equity and other funds; money managers; and public or private real estate funds.

FinCEN has long expressed an interest in regulating investment advisers, which it believes may be vulnerable to or may obscure money laundering and terrorist financing. Should the rule become final, SEC-registered investment advisers would be included in the regulatory definition of “financial institution” and, as a consequence, required to establish and implement appropriately comprehensive written AML programs and comply with a variety of reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the BSA. Investment advisers that already implemented AML programs would need to evaluate them to ensure they comply with BSA requirements.

Who are Covered “Investment Advisers”?

Investment advisers provide advisory services, such as portfolio management, financial planning, and pension consulting, to many different types of clients, including institutions, private funds and other pooled investment vehicles, pension plans, trusts, foundations and mutual funds. According to the proposed rule, an “investment adviser” would be defined as “[a]ny person who is registered or required to register with the SEC under section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(a)).”

The definition would cover all investment advisers, including subadvisers, subject to Federal regulation which, generally speaking, would include advisers that have $100 million or more in assets under management. This includes investment advisers engaging in activities with publicly or privately offered real estate funds. Small- and medium-sized investment advisers that are state-registered and other investment advisers that are exempt from SEC registration requirements would not be captured by the proposed rule. FinCEN indicated, however, that future rulemaking may include those types of advisers.

READ MORE…

Read this article and additional publications at pillsburylaw.com/publications-and-presentations.  You can also download a copy of the Client Alert.

Published on:

By

The expense provisions of many private fund governing documents are becoming longer and more detailed for good reason – increased Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) scrutiny and prosecution relating to expense allocation and disclosure.

On April 29th, the SEC announced charges against Alpha Titans LLC, a hedge fund advisory firm, its principal, Timothy P. McCormack and its general counsel, Kelly D. Kaeser, for improper use of fund assets to pay expenses that were not previously disclosed to fund investors. According to the SEC, office rent, employee salaries and benefits and other expenses totaling more than $450,000 were paid by two affiliated private funds without adequate disclosure or authorization. The SEC further alleged that Alpha Titans, McCormack and Kaeser sent investors audited financials that did not disclose that approximately $3 million of expenses pertained to transactions involving affiliates of McCormack.

According to the SEC, the funds’ outside auditor, Simon Lesser, was aware of the manner in which expenses and assets were allocated, yet approved audit reports containing unqualified opinions that the financial statements were presented fairly. He was charged with engaging in improper professional conduct in connection with an audit of the funds’ financial statements. The advisory firm also was charged with custody rule violations relating to its distribution on non-GAAP-compliant financial statements.

All of the charges were settled without admission or denial of responsibility; however, not without significant cost. McCormack and Kaeser will be barred from the securities industry for one year and Kaeser will be unable to represent an SEC-regulated entity for one year. Lesser will be suspended from providing accounting services on behalf of an entity regulated by the SEC for at least three years. Substantial monetary penalties also were assessed and the advisory firm and its principal agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

The lesson for private funds, their advisers and outside auditors is simple. First, fund documents should clearly, accurately and thoroughly disclose the types and amounts of expenses to be charged to the fund or its investors. Second, fund managers must allocate expenses and use fund assets strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions in the fund documents. Finally, outside auditors must be diligent in reviewing expense allocations and the use of fund assets to determine compliance with fund documents.

There should be no doubt that the risk of non-compliance is real.

Published on:

By

On April 20, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order against an investment advisory firm and its former chief compliance officer, for violating Sections 206(2) and 206(4) and rule 206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act and rule 38a-1 of the Investment Company Act. The SEC charged BlackRock Advisors LLC with breaching its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose a conflict of interest involving the outside business activity of one of its top-performing portfolio managers, Daniel J. Rice III. BlackRock agreed to be censured and to settle the charges by paying a $12 million penalty and engaging an independent compliance consultant to conduct an internal review.

During his tenure as an energy sector portfolio manager at BlackRock, Rice founded an oil and gas exploration and production company, formed a joint venture with a public company held in his managed funds, and acquired a second public company also held in BlackRock portfolios. BlackRock learned of Rice’s outside business activity, but allowed him to continue his involvement. The SEC found that BlackRock failed to report the conflicts of interest to the board of directors of the affected registered funds or advisory clients and failed to monitor and reassess Rice’s outside business activity after discovering the conflicts of interest. The SEC also censured BlackRock for failing to maintain and implement internal policies regarding the outside activities of employees. While Blackrock’s policies required employees to report potential conflicts and to seek pre-approval before serving on a board of directors, the firm failed to outline how employees’ outside activities would be assessed for conflicts purposes or to identify the individuals responsible for assessing outside activities.

Additionally, the SEC found BlackRock’s former chief compliance officer personally liable for causing the failure by BlackRock funds to report material compliance matters—namely Rice’s violation of BlackRock’s private investment policy—to their board of directors. The ex-officer agreed to pay a $60,000 civil penalty to settle the charge.

If you have question concerning your firm’s internal policies on the outside business activities of employees, please reach out to your Pillsbury attorney contact.

Published on:

By

With interest rates and credit spreads near historic lows and equity valuation above historical averages, many people are concerned that the Federal Reserve, by artificially keeping rates low, has created a 2007 type asset bubble in the capital markets where many securities are priced to perfection. What happens to the financial markets when the Fed begins to raise interest rates or there is some other economic shock to the financial system, and what impact will this have on the hedge fund industry? We recently saw a glimpse of this from mid-September to mid-October when we experienced a slight tremor in the capital markets which saw asset prices decline and volatility spike. This was followed by an onslaught of negative articles from the mainstream media relative to the hedge fund industry.

Agecroft Partners believes there is a low probability of another 2008 type market selloff in the near future. However, if it were to occur, the outcome in the hedge fund industry would be very different than what was experienced in 2008. The hedge fund industry is structurally much more stable today than in 2008. As describe below, such stability would result in significantly less redemptions and an avoidance of a complete seizing of inflows.

READ MORE…

Read this article and additional publications at pillsburylaw.com/publications-and-presentations.

Published on:

By

On November 25, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) brought charges against a Swiss-based bank that should serve as notice to all non-U.S. banks that maintain relationships with clients who have moved to the U.S., as well as U.S.-based banks that provide services to clients who have relocated to other countries.  The SEC found that HSBC’s Swiss-based private banking arm violated U.S. securities laws by providing investment advisory and brokerage services to U.S. clients without being properly registered as either an investment adviser or a broker-dealer.  HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) agreed to admit wrongdoing and pay $12.5 million to settle the SEC’s charges in a combination of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties.

How often do financial institutions, foreign or U.S., put themselves in the position of willfully violating the securities and banking laws of other countries?  Pretty routinely, as it turns out.  By way of example, suppose you are a citizen of a European Union country with a local banking relationship.  You work for a large multi-national company that offers you a promotion, but that new job is in New York.  Not one to decline an opportunity, off you go to the Center of the Universe.  You open a new bank account at a local New York bank, but you maintain your European bank relationship because you have a consolidated banking, investment advisory and brokerage relationship there that has worked quite well for you.  The relationship manager at your European bank certainly does not want to give up the revenue stream from your lucrative relationship, particularly now that you are making so much more money and you are willing to purchase and sell stocks more frequently.  Multiply this scenario several times over and before you know it, this certain European bank is routinely providing banking, investment advisory, and brokerage services to U.S. residents without being properly registered to do so.

This same scenario can and often does play out in reverse.  A U.S. citizen moves to a foreign country and maintains his banking, investment advisory and/or brokerage relationships with a financial institution that is not qualified to do business in the client’s new country of residence and before you know it, the U.S. financial institution is in violation of the laws of the country in which its client now resides.  And, not to gratuitously pick on any particular jurisdiction, the provision of such services in some countries pourrait être criminelle.

In the case of HSBC, the SEC found that HSBC Private Bank and its predecessors began providing cross-border advisory and brokerage services in the U.S. more than 10 years ago on behalf of at least 368 U.S. client accounts and collected fees totaling approximately $5.7 million.  HSBC relationship managers traveled to the U.S. on at least 40 occasions to solicit clients, provide investment advice, and induce securities transactions.  These relationship managers were not registered in the U.S. as investment adviser representatives or licensed brokers, nor were they affiliated with a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer (or “chaperoned” by a registered U.S. broker-dealer).  The relationship managers also communicated directly with clients in the U.S. through overseas mail and e-mails.  In 2010, HSBC Private Bank decided to exit the U.S. cross-border business, and nearly all of its U.S. client accounts were closed or transferred by the end of 2011.

According to the SEC’s order, HSBC Private Bank understood there was a risk of violating U.S. securities laws by providing unregistered investment advisory and brokerage services to U.S. clients, and the firm undertook certain compliance initiatives in an effort to manage and mitigate the risk.  The firm created a dedicated North American desk to consolidate U.S. client accounts among a smaller number of relationship managers and service them in a compliant manner that would not violate U.S. registration requirements.  However, certain relationship managers were reluctant to lose clients by transferring them to the North American desk and stalled the process or ignored it altogether.  HSBC Private Bank’s internal review revealed multiple occasions when U.S. accounts that were expected to be closed under certain compliance initiatives remained open.  HSBC Private Bank admitted to the SEC’s findings in the administrative order, acknowledged that its conduct violated U.S. securities laws, and accepted a censure and a cease-and-desist order.

Foreign financial institutions, even those that have U.S. affiliates that are properly registered and regulated as banks, investment advisers, or broker-dealers should undertake a review of their client accounts to determine whether they are providing services that are in violation of applicable law.  It is possible, perhaps even likely, that even if a non-U.S. financial institution has properly registered U.S. entities, services are being provided to certain clients outside of those entities as a result of historical relationships.  U.S. banks should also determine whether they are providing financial services to relocated clients in countries that would either prohibit such services or require some form of notification or registration.  A failure to abide by the laws of non-U.S. countries could also place a U.S. institution in the position of violating certain U.S. laws that require diligence of and compliance with the laws of other countries.

Published on:

By

On October 29, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced an administrative enforcement action against an investment advisory firm and three top officials for violating rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), the “custody rule,” that requires firms to follow certain procedures when they control or have (or are deemed to have) access to client money or securities.  This enforcement action follows closely on the heels of statements by SEC officials indicating that violations of the custody rule were a recurring theme during the “presence exams” of private equity fund advisers and other first time investment adviser registrants that have been conducted by the SEC staff over the last year and a half.

Advisory firms with custody of private fund assets can comply with the custody rule by distributing audited financial statements to fund investors within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year.  This provides investors with regular independent verification of their assets as a safeguard against misuse or theft.  The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Sands Brothers Asset Management LLC has been repeatedly late in providing investors with audited financial statements of its private funds, and the firm’s co-founders along with its chief compliance officer and chief operating officer were responsible for the firm’s failures to comply with the custody rule.  As investment adviser registrants are painfully aware, chief compliance officers have personal liability for compliance failures under Advisers Act rule 206(4)-7.  This particular enforcement action was brought pursuant to section 203(f) of and rule 206(4)-2 under the Advisers Act.  It remains to be seen whether the SEC will bring a separate action against the Sands Brothers’ chief compliance officer under rule 206(4)-7.

Also nervously awaiting any further action by the SEC would be the accountants and lawyers that advised the Sands Brothers and their hedge funds with respect to the custody matter.  The accounting firm or firms that conducted the audit of the Sands Brothers hedge funds likely knew that the funds did not meet the requirements of the custody rule.  It is less certain whether the external lawyers knew or should have known about these violations.  However, if either the accountants or lawyers knew of these violations and advised that they were only technical in nature and immaterial or  unimportant, the SEC could take separate administrative action pursuant to SEC rule 102(e) to bar any such party from practicing before the SEC.  We previously wrote about the more aggressive posture that the SEC signaled with respect to service providers, specifically lawyers that assist or “aid and abet” violations of the securities laws.  The SEC has a fairly high standard to meet when bringing these types of cases, but that has not deterred the regulator from aggressively pursuing more accountants and lawyers in recent months.

According to the SEC’s order instituting the administrative proceeding, Sands Brothers was at least 40 days late in distributing audited financial statements to investors in 10 private funds for fiscal year 2010.  The next year, audited financial statements for those same funds were delivered anywhere from six months to eight months late.  The same materials for fiscal year 2012 were distributed to investors approximately three months late.  According to the SEC’s order, Sands Brothers and the two co-founders were previously sanctioned by the SEC in 2010 for custody rule violations.

If you have been late on the delivery of your audited financial statements and have not availed yourself of the “surprise audit” provision of the custody rule, or if you manage “side car” funds that have never been audited, you should immediately get in touch with your Pillsbury attorney contact.

 

Published on:

By

China imposes controls on the inflow and outflow of foreign exchange. Given the involvement of State Administration of Foreign Exchange and various other governmental agencies in the process, repatriating funds from China can be a trap for the unwary. Foreign investors should familiarize themselves with the approval requirements and procedures.

Published on:

By

The relentless attention being paid to cyber-attacks is driving companies to increase cyber security budgets and purchases. In turn, this has led institutional investors and asset managers to see potentially massive returns associated with companies in the cyber security market. Indeed a number of companies that have gone public have had phenomenal success, and the constantly morphing nature of cyber-attacks means that purchasing trends are not likely to slow down any time soon.

However, it is critical to keep in mind that just as cyber security capabilities can be a very attractive component in evaluating a potential investment; it also could lead to potentially negative consequences. Ignorance of some key legal and policy considerations could lead to an improper assessment of the value/future earnings potential of technology investments. These considerations are true regardless of whether or not the technology or service has a core “security” component.

Below are some key issues to consider when making cyber security investment decisions:

  • Cyber security matters in every investment
    • It is a simple fact that every company faces cyber threats. Multiple studies have  demonstrated that essentially every company has been or is currently subject to cyber-attack and that most if not all have already been successfully penetrated at least once. This leads to a key consideration: every company’s cyber security posture should be considered when making investment decisions. For example, a company selling information technology that is less prone to cyber-attacks should be viewed as a better investment than competitors who pay little to no attention to how their products can be breached.
  • Cybercrime is cheap
    • The cost of conducting cyber-attacks is depressingly cheap: $2/hour to overload and shutdown websites, $30 to test whether malware will penetrate standard anti-virus systems, and $5,000 for an attack using newly designed methods to exploit previously undiscovered flaws. Indeed it is now so cheap to create malware that the majority of malicious programs are only used once – thereby defeating many existing cyber security systems which are designed to recognize existing threats. This all adds up to a cost/benefit analysis that is irresistible for cyber-attackers, and essentially guarantees that the pace and sophistication of attacks will not let up any time soon.
  • Cyber security should be in the company’s DNA
    • Whether a company is offering a service or a technology, a critical factor to consider is its approach to security. Companies that consider security a key functionality that needs to be integrated from the start of the design process are far more likely to go to market with an offering that has higher degree of security. Security as an afterthought is just that – an afterthought. Weaving security into the DNA of a service or technology will be extremely helpful in decreasing security risks. Just remember though that no security program or process is flawless, and no one should expect perfection.
  • Is there a nation-state problem?
    • An R&D or manufacturing connection to countries known for conducting large-scale cyber espionage causes heartburn for companies and governments alike. Too many instances have occurred where buying items from companies owned by or operated in problem nation states have resulted in cyber-attacks. In some cases, Federal agencies are prohibited from buying IT systems from companies with connections to specific governments. Investors and managers need to stay abreast of problem countries, and also examine whether the product or service has a connection to such countries. Failure to do so can lead to investments in companies that have limited market potential.
  • Do your homework and forensic analyses
    • There’s nothing like buying a trade secret only to find out it really isn’t a secret. Before investing in any company, conduct due diligence to determine how good the security of the company is and whether IP or trade secret information has been compromised.
  • If the government cares, so should you
    • The Federal government is stepping up its requirements regarding cyber security in procurements. That means that all federal contractors (not just defense contractors) are going to have to increase their internal cyber security programs if they want to win government contracts. Failure to have a good cyber security program could lead to lost contracts, and thus decreased growth. 
  • Words matter
    • Companies have been too lax in negotiating terms that explicitly set forth security expectations for IT products as well as who will be liable should there be a breach/attack. Judicious reviews of terms and conditions can help avoid liability following a cyber-attack. For example, companies should not accept boilerplate language regarding the following of “industry standards” or “best practices” with respect to cyber security. Instead, specific obligations and benchmarks need to be agreed upon before signing any agreement. Further agreements should be drafted to that make clear that security measures are the obligation of the other party. That way the investor has set up a stronger argument for recovering losses as well as shifting liability away from itself.
  • Insurance isn’t everything
    • Companies may be tempted to think that if a company has a cyber-insurance policy, they are protected in the event of a cyber-attack. The reality is that there is an enormous chasm between buying coverage and having claims paid. Cyber policies are increasingly being written and interpreted to cover fewer types of attacks, and so do not be tempted to think that cyber insurance can fully protect an investment.
  • SAFETY Act
    • Under the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act (SAFETY Act), cyber security services, policies, and technology providers are all eligible to receive either a damages cap or immunity from liability claims. The SAFETY Act also protects cyber security buyers, as they cannot be sued for using SAFETY Act approved items. Possessing SAFETY Act protections should be considered a positive sign and indicative of potential earnings growth.

There is no doubt about it; cyber risks are here to stay. Addressing those risks should be a core component of any business or investment strategy, because even if “today’s problem” is solved the introduction of new technologies will just mean a new threat vector for adversaries to exploit.

It is not all doom and gloom, however. Paying attention to cyber security trends and doing some simple due diligence will go far in minimizing digital risks. Make no mistake: defenses will always be incomplete and successful attacks will happen. However, with the right processes and approach, the bad outcomes can be minimized and investments will be protected.

Published on:

By

Private equity firms were put on notice last year that they may be subject to registration as broker dealers when David Blass, head of the Division of Markets and Trading at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), provided his insights at an industry conference.  Since that time, the SEC has published their examination priorities list, which included the presence exams of new registrants, a portion of which would review that status of private equity fund managers under the broker dealer rules.  Following up on this warning to the industry, the SEC has also targeted unregistered brokers for enforcement action.

Recently, at a speech in front of another industry group, Mr. Blass provided further guidance on how a private equity firm might structure its compensation arrangements in order to avoid the need to register as a broker dealer.  Consistent with the advice that Pillsbury has been providing private fund clients for many years, Mr. Blass warned against paying “transaction based” compensation and further suggested that if a private fund employee has “an overall mix of functions,” and sales is one aspect of those duties, it is less likely that the SEC staff would view such an arrangement as one that would require broker dealer registration.  An employee of a private fund manager would not be prohibited from being compensated on the overall success of the firm, and certainly sales of fund securities contribute to that overall success.  But tying compensation to assets raised looks like the traditional broker dealer compensation and should be avoided.

Mr. Blass indicated that the SEC is close to finalizing guidance on issues connected to private fund manager employee compensation.  However, the SEC staff has further to go before providing guidelines to the industry on the broker dealer registration issues posed by deal fees that private equity firms sometimes collect on transactions.  It is unlikely that Mr. Blass will see his initiatives through to completion, as he will soon be joining the staff of the Investment Company Institute where he will one day lobby against his former positions.

If you would like additional background on how the private fund managers came to find themselves in the gray zone of broker dealer registration as a result of paying their employees for performance, you may want to re-visit this article.