Articles Tagged with SEC

Published on:

By

Strategy shifts now the focus, the SEC extracts another pound of flesh from a fund adviser. In a recently settled administrative proceeding, UBS agreed to return $8.2 million of advisory fees to investors, compensate investors for $4.9 million of investment losses and pay $4.4 million in interest and penalties to the SEC for allegedly failing to disclose an investment strategy shift and failing to supervise disclosures. UBS neither admitted nor denied culpability.

Investment advisers are advised to periodically review the description of their strategy and adjust the disclosure if their practices materially diverge from the described strategy over time. In addition, advisers should consider what manner of disclosure is appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of a major strategy shift – whether, for example, to disclose promptly in an investor letter, prior to the strategy shift with an opportunity to redeem, and whether and when to involve the board of directors and/or outside counsel.

Published on:

By

The SEC, again, makes it clear:  all aspects of fee, expense and other arrangements must be disclosed accurately and in detail before commitments are accepted.

The SEC recently announced a settlement with three investment advisor affiliates of The Blackstone Group (the Advisors) that were accused of breaching their fiduciary duty to funds they manage or managed, failing to make necessary disclosure to the funds’ investors and failing to adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and its rules. The charges leveled against the Advisors centered on conflicts of interest involving monitoring fees and legal fee discounts. At the time the alleged violations occurred, each of the Advisors was an SEC-registered investment advisor. Although the Advisors neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings, they made several changes to existing business practices, agreed to pay the SEC a $10 million penalty and agreed to remit to their funds fees and interest approximating $29 million in response to allegations of violations of Section 206(2) and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act and Rules 206(4)-8 and 206(4)-7 thereunder.

Accelerated Monitoring Fees

According to the SEC, the Advisors entered into monitoring agreements with each portfolio company owned by their funds and received, in addition to the annual management fees paid by their funds, monitoring fees from the portfolio companies. In accordance with the funds’ limited partnership agreements, fifty percent of the Advisors’ monitoring fees was used to offset the annual management fee otherwise payable by the funds. Under certain of the monitoring agreements, in the event of a private sale or initial public offering of a portfolio company, monitoring fees could be accelerated for the remaining years of the agreements’ terms (including extension periods), discounted to present value and paid in advance upon termination of the agreements. Notwithstanding that fifty percent of the accelerated monitoring fees inured to the benefit of the funds and their limited partners, the SEC found the arrangements problematic because the value of the funds’ assets was reduced by the net amount of the accelerated monitoring fee payments when the portfolio companies were sold or taken public, thereby reducing amounts available for distribution to the limited partners.

The SEC was particularly offended by the fact that, in certain instances, fees were accelerated beyond the period during which a fund owned the relevant portfolio company or beyond the period during which services were performed by the Advisors. In addition, the SEC alleged that, although the Advisors disclosed their ability to collect monitoring fees to the funds and the funds’ limited partners before capital was committed to the funds, the Advisors did not disclose the practice of accelerating monitoring fees prior to the time the Advisors received the accelerated fees. The SEC conceded, however, that monitoring fee acceleration was disclosed in distribution notices, quarterly management fee reports and, where there were public offerings of portfolio companies, in SEC filings on Form S-1. The SEC further acknowledged that the funds’ limited partner advisory committees could have objected to acceleration and arbitrated the matter, but never took such action. The problem, according to the SEC, is that, because of the conflict of interest, the Advisors could not effectively consent to the acceleration.

Disparate Discounts on Legal Fees

The Advisors also negotiated a single agreement with legal counsel pursuant to which legal counsel provided services to the funds and the Advisors.  According to the SEC, although the funds generated significantly more work than the Advisors, the Advisors received substantially greater discounts than the funds. In addition, the difference in the discounts was not disclosed to the funds, the funds’ advisory committees or limited partners. Again, because of the conflict, the Advisors could not consent effectively.

Takeaways

The findings made and penalties imposed by the SEC in the Blackstone matter highlight the SEC’s disdain of conflicts of interest between advisors and the private funds they manage. More importantly, the matter makes clear the SEC’s intention to go after even the most common business practices in private equity, if the SEC determines that aspects of those practices are not disclosed fully prior to the time capital commitments are accepted. Nothing is sacrosanct.

As was the case with Blackstone, a fund’s private placement memorandum typically discloses that the fund’s management entities and affiliates of those entities may receive fees to which the fund will not be entitled. It also customarily discloses actual and potential conflicts involving fund counsel. The SEC has made clear that those disclosures will not be sufficient if they do not describe all aspects of the relevant conflicts clearly, accurately and completely. Broad and generalized disclosures, even where sophisticated and experienced fund investors are able to discern the nature of the conflict, will not protect against violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act and the rules promulgated under those sections of the Act. Further, disclosures made after investors’ capital commitments are accepted may not be sufficient.

This case also highlights the fact that the SEC will push back against attempts by an SEC-registered investment advisor to limit its fiduciary duty to the funds it advises. In addition, it appears that the SEC will apply Section 206(2) and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act broadly and with a big stick.

As is always the case, cooperation with the SEC in connection with an examination or investigation is critical. In addition, as is evidenced in the Blackstone matter, taking remedial action to eliminate or ameliorate conflicts can be very helpful to an advisor that is under SEC scrutiny and seeking to minimize exposure to punitive action.

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

In a release issued today, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has proposed anti-money laundering (AML) regulations for investment advisers. The proposed rule requires investment advisers registered or required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to establish AML programs and report suspicious activity to FinCEN pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The SEC would be delegated authority by FinCEN to examine investment advisers for compliance. The proposed rule also makes investment advisers fall under the definition of “financial institution,” requiring them to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) and comply with record keeping obligations under the BSA.

A full copy of the proposed rule is available HERE.

A related article about the new AML regulations was posted in our blog last week.

Published on:

By

Kimberly Mann, co-head of Pillsbury’s Investment Funds and Investment Management Group, was interviewed and quoted at length in an article published in FundFire this week. The article explored whether regulators should permit asset managers to settle cases without admitting culpability. In response to that question, Ms. Mann, who has expertise in investment advisor regulatory and fund-related matters, commented “If you’re asking investors, they would likely say “yes”, there should be an admission required. But if you ask fund managers, the response might be a little different and it might be nuanced; it might depend on the severity of the charge and the impact of the charge.” Ms. Mann added “There’s a lot to consider when one is trying to decide whether to make an admission. So, I think most would want flexibility.” She further commented “Some investors might shy away from anyone who’s even been charged, but there are others who might not be as put off if there weren’t an admission.”  To the question of how a regulator would determine when to require an admission, Ms. Mann responded “The broader the effect, the more aggressive [the regulator] would be in pursuing an admission.”

Read the full article HERE.

Published on:

By

Chair Mary Jo White’s remarks on August 5, 2015 highlighted the SEC’s continuing implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC and CFTC to establish a regulatory framework for the over-the-counter swap market. The SEC is specifically tasked with regulating security-based swap (“SBS”) dealers and major participants.

The Dodd-Frank Act added Section 15F to the Exchange Act requiring the SEC to adopt rules to provide for the registration of SBS dealers and major participants. Once registered, SBS dealers and major participants will be required to update information about their business activities, structure, and background in addition to information about affiliates. Moreover, SBS dealers and major participants will be immediately subject to SEC examination and inspection authority upon registration.

Additionally, SBS dealers and major participants are required to perform documented due diligence to ensure there is a framework to enable compliance with federal securities laws. The due diligence will serve as the basis for the senior officer of the SBS dealer or major participant to certify that written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of federal securities laws have been implemented at the time of registration.

Under Section 15F(b)(6) it is unlawful, unless otherwise provided by rule, regulation, or order of the SEC, for SBS dealers or major participants to permit a statutorily disqualified associated person to effect or be involved in effecting SBS transactions on their behalf. However, to facilitate the registration process of entities currently engaged in SBS business the SEC provides a limited exception from the statutorily disqualified associated person bar if (1) the associated persons are not natural persons and (2) the statutory disqualifications occurred prior to the compliance date of the final rule once it is published in the Federal Register.

In light of the statutory disqualifications that will apply to dealers and major participants; the SEC has proposed Rule of Practice 194 which provides a process to determine whether it is in the public interest to permit a statutorily disqualified associated person to continue to engage in SBS transactions on behalf of a SBS entity. Comments on proposed Rule of Practice 194 will be due 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Read the SEC release on SBS registration rules HERE.

Published on:

By

Pillsbury hosted a panel event for 100 Women in Hedge Funds on July 28 discussing conflicts of interests hedge fund managers face in managing multiple account types, such as funds, institutional separate accounts and sub-advised mutual funds.  Kristin Snyder, Associate Regional Director for Examinations, San Francisco Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission, emphasized that while the SEC does not expect advisers to have conflict-free business models, clear disclosure and effective mitigation of material conflicts are essential fiduciary duties of an adviser.  Other panelists and representatives of hedge fund managers (Frank Martin, President, Standard Pacific Capital, LLC) and institutional investors (Michelle Young, Managing Director, Ohana Advisors), provided insights into identifying, assessing, mitigating, and managing those conflicts. Ildiko Duckor, Partner and co-head of Pillsbury’s Investment Funds and Investment Management group, moderated the panel and offered tips and comments on practical solutions to account conflicts.

Published on:

By

In a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White, the Treasurers and Comptrollers of 13 states have urged the SEC to crack down on private equity funds and require better disclosure of expenses to limited partners.

Fees and expenses in the private equity space have in general been a recent focus of the SEC.  In a high-profile case this spring, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) was fined nearly $30 million for misallocating so-called “broken deal” expenses to its flagship private equity funds and none to co-investors.   KKR, however, failed to adopt policies and procedures governing broken deal expense allocations during the period in question, which contributed to a finding of breach of fiduciary duty.  KKR also did not expressly disclose in its funds’ limited partnership agreements and related offering materials that it did not allocate any of the broken deal expenses to co-investors.

The issue that the state Treasurers brought up in their letter to the SEC may be differently motivated. The main complaints of the letter, inadequate expense reporting and opaque calculations of management fee offsets, surfaced shortly after some large state pension funds came under fire for failing to track and providing incorrect reporting of the amount of fees and carried interest paid to the private equity managers they invested with over the course of many years. One of the Treasurers noted that the letter was independently generated following discussions of transparency issues among the Treasurers for more than a year, and not as a result of those criticisms.

The full Treasurers and Comptrollers’ letter to the SEC is available HERE.

Published on:

By

Chair Mary Jo White’s opening remarks on July 15 kicking off the annual broker-dealer compliance outreach program drew a parallel between the goals and work of the SEC and those of compliance professionals. Ms. White acknowledged the challenges and hardship that compliance professionals face, the critical importance of their role to investors and the integrity of the markets. Her acknowledgment comes after the upset that compliance professionals experienced when BlackRock’s CCO was found personally liable and slapped with a civil penalty. (See our previous post regarding BlackRock’s censure and its compliance officer’s personal liability.) Ms. White’s assurance that “it is not our intention to use our enforcement program to target compliance professionals” was hedged by her statement that “we must, of course, take enforcement action against compliance professionals if we see significant misconduct or failures by them.”

Ms. White named the following examination priorities: fee structures; suitability; order routing conflicts; recidivist representatives; microcap activity; excessive trading; transfer agent activity; and issues of importance to retail investors and investors saving for retirement.

Read more of Chair Mary Jo White’s opening remarks at the Compliance Outreach Program for Broker-Dealers HERE.

Published on:

By

Pillsbury partner Ildiko Duckor will participate in the 100 Women in Hedge Funds sponsored event titled “HOT topics in Compliance: Conflicts of Interests in Account Management and more” on July 28, 2015.

In quest for assets and investors, hedge fund managers continue to diversify their client base. When they are successful, they may end up with a broad spectrum of accounts: managed accounts, 40 Act registered funds and proprietary accounts in addition to hedge funds. With variety comes complication – from a compliance perspective.

Are your side-by-side account management procedures up to par?

Join us in a panel discussion with experts from the SEC, Legal/Compliance, and Managers/Investors highlighting just what you need to know about the following compliance hot button topics:

  • Conflicts of interests in the center of the SEC’s focus – arising from trade allocations, expense allocations, related party transactions, side letters and proprietary account biases
  • Best practices you should have in place now
  • Investors’ main concerns during negotiations with the managers and what you need to know about their due diligence expectations

For more information, visit 100 Women in Hedge Funds.

Date & Time
7/28/2015
6:00 pm PT

Location
Pillsbury’s San Francisco office
Four Embarcadero Center
22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Event Contact
Jessica Slater

Speakers

Ildiko Duckor
Kristin Synder, Securities and Exchange Commission
Frank Martin, Standard Pacific Capital, LLC
Michelle Young, Ohana Advisors

Sponsors
Pillsbury
100 Women in Hedge Funds