Articles Tagged with Private Funds

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay B. Gould

On September 23, 2013, the JOBS Act rules that roll back the 80 year old ban on the use of general advertising and public solicitation by issuers of unregistered securities will be a reality. At least it will be a reality for fund managers that do not rely on an exemption from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Private funds managers will decide over time whether they would like to avail themselves of the new rules, which will allow them to post performance numbers on their websites, talk openly about their funds on CNBC and Bloomberg, sponsor NASCAR events, and just generally be more open and transparent about their businesses. The responsibilities associated with these new rights are the requirements that the fund manager verify the accredited status of each investor, refrain from committing financial fraud, and file a revised Form D to indicate that the fund is following the new rules. Whether to use these new rules will be a tough call for many fund managers as they consider whether greater transparency provides a benefit for their specific business model. Hedge funds have often avoided the glare of public scrutiny, but the trade-off of building a more recognizable brand and more easily reaching potential investors could provide motivation for some fund managers to give these new rules a try.

But what happens if a fund manager is initially enamored of the new rules and decides to advertise generally, but later changes his mind? Can a fund manager go back to the old “pre-existing, substantial relationship” days, and how do you do that once the fund has been “generally offered” to the public? This could happen for any number of reasons. Perhaps the most prevalent would be that the manager reaches capacity in the fund in either assets, such as a quant fund, or investor slots, which would more likely be the case for a fund that relies on Section 3(c)(1) for its exemption from investment company registration. A fund manager in one of these situations may have originally liked the idea of generally advertising, but subsequently finds public solicitation of limited utility and not worth the potential added scrutiny from regulators and market participants.

If a fund commences an offering pursuant to Rule 506(c) using general solicitation, and later wants to go back and use the old rules, (i.e., rule 506(b)), the issue is one of integration. Rule 506(b) prohibits general solicitation; accordingly, the only way to stop using the public offering rules once a fund manager has done so, would be to wait a period of time so the rule 506(c) offering is not integrated with the rule 506(b) offering. Rule 502(a) of Regulation D provides for a safe harbor from integration so long as the selling effort of the earlier offering ceases for six months, and the fund does not commence a subsequent offering for 6 months after completion of the earlier offering. Therefore, a fund manager would need to cease the offering, file the Form D to indicate that the offering is over, and wait six months before commencing the “private” offering. A new Form D would need to be filed for the private offering under Rule 506(b) once that offering commences.

There is another way whereby fund managers could go straight from the public offering to the private offering without the six month cooling off period. It is possible that a fund manager could use the five factor test safe harbor of Rule 502(a) to avoid integration and commence a new private offering immediately. For most hedge fund managers, this would be fairly tough test to meet. The five factors that a fund would need to consider are as follows:

(a) Whether the sales are part of a single plan of financing;
(b) Whether the sales involve issuance of the same class of securities;
(c) Whether the sales have been made at or about the same time;
(d) Whether the same type of consideration is being received; and
(e) Whether the sales are made for the same general purpose.

In order to meet the requirements of the five factor test, the fund seeking to avoid integration would need to offer a different class of shares/interests, for a different investment purposes, with different terms and conditions. For many hedge fund managers, this will be a difficult standard to meet. So the bottom line here appears to be that you can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, he will just need six months in intensive care.

Published on:

By

Written by:  Jessica Brown

On July 25, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Division of Investment Management released its first annual report to Congress, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), regarding how it used private fund data collected from investment advisers on Form PF. Dodd-Frank gave the SEC authority to require registered investment advisers to file reports and maintain records regarding the funds they advise. The SEC adopted Form PF in 2011 as the mechanism through which registered advisers must provide this information to the SEC.

Although it acknowledges that the intent of the Dodd-Frank provision was to provide data for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) to assess systemic risk, the SEC is using the data to support its own regulatory programs as well.  

In this first report to Congress, the SEC indicated that is has been focused on the Form PF electronic filing system, resolving technical issues with security and data collection, guiding Form PF filers through the new form and system, establishing protocols for internal access and protection of data, and providing the FSOC with access to the data. Various divisions of the SEC have begun to use the Form PF data to assist with monitoring, identifying and examining investment advisers and private funds. The SEC also plans to provide non-proprietary Form PF data about large hedge funds to the International Organization of Securities Commission for its report on the global hedge fund market.

Published on:

By

Written by:  Kimberly Mann

Private investment fund structures frequently include one or more vehicles that are organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is a preferred jurisdiction because there is no tax on income, profits or capital gains, nor is there withholding tax. In addition, at the time of its formation, an entity may purchase a tax exemption certificate which will preserve its tax-free status for several years. Formation in the Cayman Islands is relatively efficient and inexpensive and a number of different types of business organizational structures that offer limited liability for investors may be used. Advisors to Cayman funds also may avoid licensing requirements if they fall within an available exemption.

Cayman entities likely will become even more attractive to fund managers, sponsors and investors as a result of recent changes to Cayman law pertaining to fiduciary duties, third party beneficiaries of indemnification provisions, the manner in which fund documents may be executed, the use of foreign partnerships as general partners of Cayman limited partnerships and the adoption of a limited liability company statute, all of which help to bring Cayman law in line with Delaware law. However, fund managers are advised to remember important anti-money laundering obligations that apply to investment funds under Cayman law.

Anti-money Laundering Requirements

Notwithstanding the recent liberalization of certain laws and the absence of registration or licensing requirements in many cases, managers of Cayman vehicles are subject to strict anti-money laundering compliance requirements under the Proceeds of Crime Law (“PCL”) and the Money Laundering Regulations promulgated under the PCL. In addition, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority Guidance Notes on Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Cayman Islands (“Guidance Notes”) provide important guidelines for anti-money laundering compliance. Under the Cayman anti-money laundering regime, fund managers must
(i) establish client identification procedures, (ii) implement suspicious transaction reporting procedures, (iii) maintain know-your-client information and suspicious transaction records, (iv) develop internal controls, policies and procedures that are appropriate to prevent money laundering, (v) implement an anti-money laundering training program for staff members and (vi) designate a compliance officer at the management level with the requisite skills and experience to manage the compliance program and report to the board of directors or its equivalent.

The purpose of the Guidance Notes is to assist funds and other financial services providers to comply with applicable Cayman Islands Money Laundering Regulations. The Guidance Notes describe the types of documentation that should be used as evidence of the identity of investors and their beneficial owners and signatories. The type of documentation required depends, in large measure, upon the nature of the investor or beneficial owner. For example, identification documents for natural persons would include a current valid passport, a recent utility bill and a reference letter from a lawyer, accountant or other respected professional. Appropriate documentation for a corporate investor would include a certificate of incorporation, a copy of recent financial statements of the company, identification evidence of each of the principal beneficial owners holding a 10% or greater interest in the company or otherwise exercising control over the company and copies of the resolutions of the board of directors authorizing the investment in the fund. If copies of identifying documents are submitted, they should be certified by a lawyer, accountant, notary public, member of the judiciary or other suitable certifier. The Guidance Notes are not required to be followed slavishly; rather, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority expects financial services providers to exercise prudent judgment and take the Guidance Notes into account when devising their anti-money laundering policies and procedures.

A Pragmatic Approach – Using an Intermediary

Under the Money Laundering Regulations, evidence of identity is satisfactory if it is reasonably capable of establishing that the investor is who it claims to be. There are circumstances under which it may be duplicative, onerous or unhelpful for a fund manager to obtain and verify identification evidence about a prospective investor. In those cases, it may be appropriate to rely on the due diligence of a third party intermediary that will serve as an “eligible introducer.” An eligible introducer is, among other things, (i) a lawyer or certified or chartered accountant or firm of lawyers or certified or chartered accountants, conducting business in a country with legislation equivalent to the Money Laundering Regulations, (ii) a member of a professional body in a country listed in Schedule 3 of the Money Laundering Regulations that is subject to disciplinary action for failure to comply with guidelines similar to the Guidance Notes or (iii) a financial institution in a country listed in Schedule 3 of the Money Laundering Regulations that has regulations equivalent to the Money Laundering Regulations, if the financial institution is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory authority outside the Cayman Islands that is the functional equivalent of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. Use of an eligible introducer may be pragmatic in order to create efficiencies in cases where the introducer would have already conducted procedures to verify the identity of the prospective investor. An eligible introducer must ensure that its documentation is accurate and up-to-date. The nature of the relationship between the introducer and the fund manager and between the introducer and the prospective investor, as well as the bona fides of the introducer, will determine whether it is appropriate to use the introducer as an intermediary for anti-money laundering purposes.

Required Due Diligence on the Intermediary

It is important for a fund manager to keep in mind that it is responsible for ensuring that the procedures utilized by the introducer are substantially in accordance with the Guidance Notes and that documentary evidence of the introducer upon which the manager will rely is satisfactory. Evidence is satisfactory if it complies with the requirements of the anti-money laundering regime of the country from which the introduction is made. Fund managers or administrators typically require an eligible introducer to provide a comfort letter or eligible introducer form providing assurances that (i) the intermediary qualifies as an eligible introducer, (ii) the introducer’s due diligence procedures are satisfactory, (iii) the introducer has information that clearly establishes the identity of the investor or the investor’s beneficial owner, (iv) the introducer will make available upon request copies of documentation that it has obtained regarding the identity of the prospective investor or the prospective investor’s beneficial owner and (v) due diligence and other identification documentation will be retained by the introducer for the time period required by the regulations to which the introducer is subject. In addition to the comfort letter or eligible introducer form, the fund manager should obtain independent evidence of the eligibility of the introducer, such as confirmation that the introducer is a regulated entity or a member in good standing of a professional body. It is also advisable to test, from time to time, the introducer’s ability to furnish requested identifying documentation promptly. If it turns out that reliance should not have been placed on an introducer, the fund manager must carry out its own due diligence procedures on the prospective investor or beneficial owner.

Exemptions for Certain Types of Investors

Documentary evidence of identity is not required under all circumstances. For example, evidence of identity is not typically required where the investor is a governmental entity, agency of government or a statutory body. In addition, financial institutions in countries listed in Schedule 3 of the Money Laundering Regulations, companies with securities that are listed on exchanges or other markets approved by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority and pension funds are examples of entities for which exemptions exist.  For pension funds, evidence that the investor is a pension fund may consist of a copy of a certificate of registration or an order, approval or regulation of a governmental, regulatory or fiscal authority in the jurisdiction in which the pension fund was established. In the absence of any such evidence, the fund manager should obtain the names and addresses of the trustees or other persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the pension fund.

Summary

The failure to take the Guidance Notes into account could result in sanctions under Cayman law. The Guidance Notes make clear that fund managers should consider money laundering and terrorist financing prevention as part of their risk management strategies and not as a stand-alone requirement. Policies should be tailored to the nature and scope of the fund’s business. Prior to accepting subscribers, a fund manager or its administrator should ensure that documentary evidence of the identity of each prospective investor has been provided and reviewed. Where there are questions, or if insufficient information has been provided by a prospective investor, the manager or administrator should follow up until the prospective investor and its beneficial owners have been adequately identified and determined to be suitable from an anti-money laundering perspective. Subscription materials should be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to include anti-money laundering attestations and documentary requests. Fund managers that are U.S. persons also should check the names of prospective investors and their beneficial owners to determine whether they are on the list of specially designated nationals published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.  Managers that are registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as investment advisors likely have an anti-money laundering system in place that meets the requirements of the Guidance Notes. Managers that are not registered investment advisors may not have such policies and procedures in place and may benefit from assistance from counsel or a consultant in establishing and maintaining a satisfactory system.

Published on:

By

On April 8, 2013, we reviewed a recent speech by David Blass, the Chief Counsel of the Division of Trading and Markets of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), in which Mr. Blass provided his views on whether certain investment fund managers might be operating in a way that would require registration as a broker dealer.  For hedge fund managers, the problem typically arises in the context of paying internal sales people based on the amount of capital raised.  As we noted, the widespread misreading or abuse of Rule 3a4-1, the issuer’s exemption safe harbor on which so many hedge fund managers rely, is now clearly on the SEC’s radar.

But there are other ways to become entangled in broker dealer registration requirements that many private equity funds (and some hedge funds) will also need to consider.  The SEC staff is aware that advisers to some private funds, such as managers of private equity funds executing a leverage buyout strategy, may collect fees other than advisory fees, some of which look suspiciously like brokerage commissions.  It is not uncommon for a fund manager to direct the payment of fees by a portfolio company of the fund to one of its affiliates in connection with the acquisition, disposition (including an initial public offering), or recapitalization of the portfolio company.  These fees are often described as compensating the fund manager or its affiliated company, or personnel for “investment banking activity,” including negotiating transactions, identifying and soliciting purchasers or sellers of the securities of the company, or structuring transactions.  These are typical investment banking activities for which registration as a broker dealer is required.

Perhaps through its presence exams, the SEC staff recognizes that the practice of charging these transaction fees is fairly common among certain private equity fund managers.  Blass suggested that if the payment of these investment banking type fees were used to offset the management fee, then a valid argument could be made that no separate brokerage compensation was generated.  However, the industry argument that the receipt of such fees by the general partner of the fund should be viewed as the same person as the fund, so there are no transactions for the account of others was not an argument that the SEC staff appeared ready to endorse.  As long as the fee is paid to someone other than the fund for the types of activities described above, then the general partner or its affiliate would need to go through the analysis as to why broker dealer registration is not required.  The private equity fund bar has also advanced the policy argument that requiring private equity fund managers to register as broker dealers serves no useful purpose.  This policy argument that advocates the position that the SEC should exempt certain firms and not others for the same conduct, as attractive as it might be for managers of private equity funds, is a total non-starter from the regulator’s perspective.  The SEC staff will remain fixated on the type of activity and the fees generated from that activity when attempting to determine whether registration is required.

Particularly among private equity fund managers, many of which have not had a history of being a regulated entity, this violation of the broker dealer registration requirement is not viewed as a serious matter because “everyone else is doing it.”  But the SEC is putting private equity on notice that this is an area that the staff will focus on in examinations and will eventually bring enforcement action.  In addition to being subject to sanctions by the SEC, another possible consequence of acting as an unregistered broker-dealer is the potential right to rescission by investors.  A transaction that is intermediated by an inappropriately unregistered broker-dealer could potentially be rendered void.  A purchaser of securities would typically seek to void a transaction if the price had moved against him, leaving the fund manager scrambling to make up the difference between the sales price and the value at rescission.   Private equity fund managers and those hedge fund managers that conduct similar activities should give greater attention to this issue for which the SEC staff has provided fair warning.

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

On February 21, 2013, the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Staff” and the “SEC,” respectively) published its 2013 priorities for the National Examination Program (“NEP”) in order to provide registrants with the opportunity to bring their organizations into compliance with the areas that are perceived by the Staff to have heightened risk.  The NEP examines all regulated entities, such as investment advisers and investment companies, broker dealers, transfer agents and self-regulatory organizations, and exchanges.  This article will focus only on the NEP priorities pertaining to the investment advisers and investment companies program (“IA-ICs”)

As a general matter, the Staff is concerned with fraud detection and prevention, corporate governance and enterprise risk management, conflicts of interest, and the use and implications of technology.  The 2013 NEP priorities, viewed in tandem with the “Presence Exam” initiative that was announced by the SEC in October 2012, makes it abundantly clear that the Staff will focus on the approximately 2000 investment advisers that are newly registered as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd Frank”).

The Staff intends to focus its attention on the areas set forth below.   

New and Emerging Issues.

The Staff believes that new and emerging risks related to IA-ICs include the following:

  • New Registrants.  The vast majority of the approximately 2,000 new investment adviser registrants are advisers to hedge funds or private equity funds that have never been registered, regulated, or examined by the SEC.  The Presence Exam initiative, which is a coordinated national examination initiative, is designed to establish a meaningful “presence” with these newly registered advisers.  The Presence Exam initiative is expected to operate for approximately two years and consists of four phases: (i) engagement with the new registrants; (ii) examination of a substantial percentage of the new registrants; (iii) analysis of the examination findings; and (iv) preparation of a report to the industry on the findings.  The Presence Exam initiative will not preclude the SEC from bringing enforcement actions against newly registered advisers.  The Staff will give a higher priority to private fund advisers that it believes present a greater risk to investors relative to the rest of the registrant population or where there are indicia of fraud or other serious wrongdoing.  We expect to see the SEC bring enforcement actions against private equity and hedge fund managers for issues related to valuations, calculation of performance-related compensation and communications to investors that describe valuations and performance-related compensation.
  • Dually Registered IA/BD.  Due to the continued convergence in the investment adviser and broker-dealer industry, the Staff will continue to expand coordinated and joint examinations with the broker dealer examination program of dually registered firms and distinct broker-dealer and investment advisory businesses that share common financial professionals.  It is not uncommon for a financial professional to conduct a brokerage business through a registered broker-dealer that the financial professional does not own or control and to conduct investment advisory business through a registered investment adviser that the financial professional owns and controls, but that is not overseen by the broker-dealer.  This business model presents many potential conflicts of interest.  Among other things, the Staff will review how financial professionals and firms satisfy their suitability obligations when determining whether to recommend brokerage or advisory accounts, the financial incentives for making such recommendations, and whether all conflicts of interest are fully and accurately disclosed.
  • “Alternative” Investment Companies.    The NEP will also focus on the growing use of alternative and hedge fund investment strategies in registered open-end funds, exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), and variable annuity structures.  The Staff intends to assess whether: (i) leverage, liquidity and valuation policies and practices comply with regulations; (ii) boards, compliance personnel, and back-offices are staffed, funded, and empowered to handle the new strategies; and (iii) the funds are being marketed to investors in compliance with regulations.
  • Payments for Distribution In Disguise.    The Staff will also examine the wide variety of payments made by advisers and funds to distributors and intermediaries, the adequacy of disclosure made to fund boards about these payments, and boards’ oversight of the same.  With respect to private funds, the Staff will examine payments to finders or other unregistered intermediaries that may be conducting a broker dealer business without being registered as such.  Payments made pursuant to the Cash Solicitation Rule will also be a focus of private fund payment arrangements.

Ongoing Risks.

The Staff anticipates that the ongoing risks selected as focus areas for IA-ICs in 2013 will include:

  • Safety of Assets.  The Staff has indicated that recent examinations of investment advisers have found a high frequency of issues regarding the custody and safety of client assets under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) Rule 206(4)-2 (the “Custody Rule”).   The staff will focus on issues such as whether advisers are: (i) appropriately recognizing situations in which they have custody as defined in the Custody Rule; (ii) complying with the Custody Rule’s “surprise exam” requirement; (iii) satisfying the Custody Rule’s “qualified custodian” provision; and (iv) following the terms of the exception to the independent verification requirements for pooled investment vehicles.  Many private equity funds and fund of funds have been slow to adopt policies and procedures that comply with the Custody Rule.
  • Conflicts of Interest Related to Compensation Arrangements.  The Staff expects to review financial and other records to identify undisclosed compensation arrangements and the conflicts of interest that they present.  These activities may include undisclosed fee or solicitation arrangements, referral arrangements (particularly to affiliated entities), and receipt of payment for services allegedly provided to third parties. For example, some advisers that place client assets with particular funds or fund platforms are, in return, paid “client servicing fees” by such funds and fund platforms. Such arrangements present a material conflict of interest that must be fully and clearly disclosed to clients.  These types of compensation arrangements are commonplace among private equity fund advisers, many of which have just recently registered.  In fact, many private equity funds have compensation arrangements that the Staff believes requires broker dealer registration.  We believe that the Staff will make this point quite clearly by bringing enforcement actions against certain private equity fund general partners for engaging in unregistered broker dealer activity.  Enforcement actions are viewed as an effective way to get the message across to an industry that has long ignored this particular issue.
  • Marketing/Performance.  Marketing and performance advertising is viewed by the Staff as an inherently high-risk area, particularly among private funds that are not necessarily subject to an industry standard for the calculation of investment returns.  Aberrational performance of certain registrants and funds can be an indicator of fraudulent or weak valuation procedures or practices.  The Staff will also focus on the accuracy of advertised performance, including hypothetical and back-tested performance, the assumptions or methodology utilized, and related disclosures and compliance with record keeping requirements.   The Staff is starting to think about how the anticipated changes in advertising practices related to the JOBS Act will affect their reviews regarding registrants’ use of general solicitations to promote private funds.  Whether private funds will be permitted to advertise performance under the JOBS Act rules remains to be seen.  Certainly, there have been loud and influential voices that advocated for the position that the SEC should continue to study performance advertising by private funds before allowing it in the adoption of the highly anticipated rules.
  • Conflicts of Interest Related to Allocation of Investment Opportunities.  Advisers managing accounts that do not pay performance fees (e.g., most mutual funds), side-by-side with accounts that pay performance-based fees (e.g., most hedge funds) face potential conflicts of interest.  The Staff will attempt to verify that the registrant has controls in place to monitor the side-by-side management of its performance-based fee accounts and non-performance-based fee accounts with similar investment objectives, especially if the same portfolio manager is responsible for making investment decisions for both kinds of client accounts or funds.  For certain types of strategies, such as credit strategies, where one fund may be permitted to invest in all securities in the capital structure, whereas other funds may be limited in what they can purchase by credit quality or otherwise, these potential conflicts of interest are particularly acute.  Fund managers must have policies in place that account for these potential conflicts, manage the conflicts and document the investment resolution.
  • Fund Governance.  The Staff will continue to focus on the “tone at the top” when assessing compliance programs.  The Staff will seek to confirm that advisers are making full and accurate disclosures to fund boards and that fund directors are conducting reasonable reviews of such information in connection with contract approvals, oversight of service providers, valuation of fund assets, and assessment of expenses or viability.  Chief Compliance Officers will want to make sure that those items that are required to be undertaken in the compliance manual actually occur as stated and scheduled.

Policy Topics.

The staff anticipates that the policy topics for IA-ICs will include:

  • Money Market Funds.  The SEC continues to delude itself regarding the regulation of money market funds.  This once sleepy and relatively benign product is now the pillar of the commercial paper market and functions like and deserves the regulation of a banking product.  But the SEC, and the mutual fund trade organization, are loathe to cede authority to banking regulators for this “dollar per share”  product.  Accordingly, the SEC will continue to try to find ways for thinly capitalized advisers to offer and manage  money market funds by requiring money market funds to periodically stress test their ability to maintain a stable share price based on hypothetical events, such as changes in short-term interest rates, increased redemptions, downgrades and defaults, and changes in spreads from selected benchmarks (i.e., basically, all of the market events that have proven fatal to money market funds in the past and which will be so again as long as these funds remain fundamentally flawed).
  • Compliance with Exemptive Orders.  The staff will focus on compliance with previously granted exemptive orders, such as those related to registered closed-end funds and managed distribution plans, employee securities companies, ETFs and the use of custom baskets, and those granted to fund advisers and their affiliates permitting them to engage in co-investment opportunities with the funds.  Exemptive orders are typically granted pursuant to a number of well-developed conditions with which the registrant promises to adhere.  The market timing and late trading scandals of 2003 illustrated that once a registrant has obtained an exemptive order, it may or may not abide by all of the conditions of that order.
  • Compliance with the Pay to Play Rule.  To prevent advisers from obtaining business from government entities in return for political “contributions” (i.e., engaging in pay to play practices), the SEC recently adopted and subsequently amended, a pay to play rule. The Staff will review for compliance in this area, as well as assess the practical application of the rule.  Advisers should be aware that most states have their own pay to play rules and many of them have penalties that are far more onerous than the SEC’s rule.

We will continue to monitor this and other new developments and provide our clients with up to date analysis of the rules and regulations that may affect their businesses.

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…