Investment Fund Law Blog - Legal News Updates for Investment Fund Managers & Investors : Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Written by:  Jay Gould

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.

Written by:  Jay Gould

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.

Written by David M. Furbush, Sarah Good and Bruce A. Ericson

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

READ MORE...

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

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:

CONTINUE READING...

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

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

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tax provisions of Internal Revenue Code are now “permanent,” meaning that the sunset provisions of EGTRRA have been repealed.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

READ MORE…

Written by: Jeffrey Stern, Dulcie D. Brand and Anthony H. Schouten

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued new “know your customer” and external business conduct rules to give effect to certain provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Under these rules, major dealers in swaps and derivatives (“Swap Dealers”) will be required to, among other things, conduct diligence on counterparties, verify their status as “eligible contract participants” and ensure that swap recommendations are suitable for them. In addition, these rules impose heightened duties on Swap Dealers that trade with employee benefit plans subject to Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, governmental plans as defined in ERISA Section 3, endowments, state and federal agencies, and other protected counterparties (“Special Entities”).

 MORE...

Written by:  Jay Gould

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) recently charged and entered into consent decrees with four India-based brokerage firms for providing brokerage services to U.S. investors without being registered as broker dealers under the U.S. securities laws.  This otherwise mildly interesting enforcement action by the SEC should serve as a cautionary tale to hedge fund managers based outside the U.S. that seek to raise capital from U.S. investors, as well as U.S. fund managers that seek to sell their fund shares in foreign countries.

Many non-U.S.-based fund managers seek to raise money from U.S. investors due to the large amounts of available capital in this country and the relative willingness of U.S. investors to consider managers from foreign jurisdictions.  However, visiting potential U.S. investors or sending fund marketing materials into the U.S. without complying with the U.S. broker dealer rules could result in a fate similar to that suffered by the four Indian brokerage firms that were sanctioned and fined by the SEC. In order to avoid an enforcement proceeding, non-U.S. fund managers should retain a properly registered U.S. brokerage firm to sell the fund’s securities, enter into a “chaperoning” arrangement with a U.S. broker or register a subsidiary as a broker-dealer in the U.S.  

Whether prudent or not, most U.S.-based fund managers rely on Rule 3a4-1, the so-called “issuers exemption,” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) in order to avoid either registering the general partner or an affiliate of the fund as a broker, or retaining an unrelated broker to sell the fund’s interests.  But when U.S. fund managers travel outside the U.S. to gauge interest or solicit potential investors, the U.S. rules are not applicable.  Each country has its own regulatory scheme, and fund managers are well advised to understand what is permitted and prohibited in each country before visiting each country at the risk of being the subject of a new episode of “Locked Up Abroad.”  Indeed, certain countries impose criminal sanctions for offering securities if the offeror is not properly authorized to do so.

The Investment Fund Law Blog boldly predicts that the SEC will one day soon re-visit the industry’s expansive interpretation of the “issuer’s exemption” and the result will not be pleasant for the private funds industry.

So what did these Indian brokerage firms do to incur the wrath of the SEC?  The activities that these firms engaged in included:

• Buying and selling Indian securities on Indian stock exchanges on behalf of U.S. investors;
• Managing public offerings for Indian issuers in which shares were sold to U.S. investors;
• Soliciting U.S. investors by email, phone calls, and in-person meetings between Indian issuers and U.S. investors;
• Engaging in commission sharing agreements with U.S. registered broker-dealers, in which the firms provided research to U.S. investors in exchange for commission income;
• Organizing and sponsoring conferences in the U.S. bringing together representatives of Indian issuers and U.S. investors; and
• Sending firm employees to the U.S. to meet with U.S. investors and attend corporate road shows.

Many of these activities no doubt sound hauntingly familiar to U.S.-based fund managers that travel abroad for the purpose of raising capital.  All four firms were censured and ordered to pay a combined total of more than $1.8 million in disgorgements and prejudgment interest, but no civil penalties were imposed due to the firms’ cooperation with the SEC.  The firms have all submitted settlement offers, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.

The SEC’s press release on the matter can be found here. 

Under current gift tax law, any individual may make a gift of up to $5.12 million this year to the individual’s children, grandchildren and other beneficiaries without paying gift tax.  Any gift in excess of that amount is taxed at a historically-low 35%.  Unless Congress acts to extend (in whole or part) this benefit, created under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the gift exemption will decrease to $1 million on January 1, 2013.  Any gift in excess of $1 million will thereafter be taxed at up to 55%.  Fund managers and other financial services professionals who have significant estates should consult their tax and estate planning professionals immediately to take advantage of this enormous opportunity.  Many fund managers are making gifts of carried interests to “dynasty trusts” created in states that permit trusts to continue in perpetuity, where the gift may be held for the benefit of future generations without being reduced by estate or other transfer taxes at each generation.  Pillsbury’s latest Advisory addresses this topic in detail; you can find the Advisory at www.pillsburylaw.com/publications.

by Joseph J. Kaufman

New guidance outlines key rules for the new confidential review option for initial public offerings by emerging growth companies in the United States. 

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (also known as the JOBS Act) became a U.S. federal law on April 5, 2012 and immediately authorized a confidential submission option for registered securities offerings in the United States by emerging growth companies (EGCs). The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s Division of Corporation Finance staff promptly announced its procedure for accepting confidential draft registration statements using this option. The staff has also given written and oral guidance on a number of relevant frequently asked questions. This alert explains the background and expected benefits of the confidential submission option and reviews the SEC staff guidance.

MORE...

Written by Jay Gould, Michael Wu and Peter Chess

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) recently amended its registration rules regarding Commodity Pool Operators (“CPOs”) and Commodity Trading Advisors (“CTAs”), which will require many general partners and managers of private investment funds that previously relied on an exemption from registration to now register with the CFTC.  After a public comment period in which the industry overwhelmingly supported the continuation of these exemptions, the CFTC decided to rescind the CPO exemption under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(4) and amend the CPO exemption under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3).  Rule 4.13(a)(4) previously exempted private pools from registering as a CPO with the CFTC for funds offered only to institutional qualified eligible purchasers (“QEPs”) and natural persons who meet QEP requirements that hold more than a de minimis amount of commodity interests.

The CFTC's amendment did not change the application of CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) to a fund of a hedge fund (“Fund of Funds”).  However, due to the repeal of these exemptions, many of the general partners or managers of a Fund of Funds’ underlying funds may be required to register as CPOs, thereby requiring registration of the Fund of Funds manager.  The CFTC has provided guidance with respect to when a Fund of Funds manager may continue to rely upon an exemption from registration as a CPO.  We have summarized these circumstances below:     

• If a fund (i) allocates a Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, which do not satisfy the trading limits of CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3)[1] (“Trading Limits”) and each of which is operated by a registered CPO, and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may only rely on Section 4.13(a)(3) if the Fund of Funds itself satisfies the Trading Limits.
• If a fund (i) allocates a Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, each having a CPO who is either (a) exempt under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) or (b) a registered CPO that complies with the Trading Limits, and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may rely on Section 4.13(a)(3).
• If a fund (i) allocates a Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, each of which satisfies the Trading Limits, and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may multiply the percentage restriction applicable to each underlying fund by the percentage of the Fund of Fund’s allocation of assets to such underlying fund, to determine whether that fund may rely on Section 4.13(a)(3).
• If a fund (i) allocates the Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, and it has actual knowledge of the Trading Limits of the underlying funds (e.g., where the underlying funds or their CPOs are affiliated with a fund), and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may aggregate the commodity interest positions across the underlying funds to determine compliance with the Trading Limits and whether or not that fund may rely on CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3). 
• If a fund (i) allocates no more than 50% of the Fund of Fund’s assets to underlying funds that trade commodity interests (regardless of the level of trading engaged by such underlying funds), and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may rely on CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3).

The CFTC amended Section 4.13(a)(3) to address how to calculate the notional value of swaps and how to net swaps.  In addition, the CFTC will now require a CPO relying on Section 4.13(a)(3) to submit an annual notice to the National Futures Association affirming its ability to continue relying on the exemption.  If a CPO cannot affirm its ability to do so, the CPO will be required to withdraw the exemption and, if necessary, apply for registration as such.

For additional information on whether these rule amendments will require you to register as a CPO or CTA, or whether the CFTC guidance or another exemption might provide a further exemption from registration, please contact your Pillsbury Investment Funds Attorney.

[1]   CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) requires that at all times either: (a) the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish commodity interest positions does not exceed five percent of the liquidation value of the Fund’s investment portfolio; or (b) the aggregate net notional value of the Fund’s commodity interest positions does not exceed one-hundred percent of the liquidation value of the Fund’s investment portfolio.

Written by Louis A. Bevilacqua, Joseph R. Tiano, Jr., David S. Baxter, Ali Panjwani and K. Brian Joe

This article summarizes various legislation introduced in Congress that would make it easier for smaller companies to raise capital and would lessen the regulatory burden on those companies. 

Legislators have introduced eight different proposals in Congress to make it easier for smaller companies to raise money and lessen the regulatory burden on those companies. These proposed acts are the following:

􀂄 H.R. 1070 - Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011

􀂄 S. 1544 - Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011

􀂄 H.R. 2930 - Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act

􀂄 S. 1791 - Democratizing Access to Capital Act

􀂄 S. 1970 - Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act of 2011 or the Crowdfund Act

􀂄 H.R. 2940 - Access to Capital for Job Creators Act

􀂄 S. 1933 - Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011

􀂄 H.R. 2167 - Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act

Two of these proposed acts already have passed through the House of Representatives: H.R. 1070 (Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011), which passed through the House on November 2, 2011 by a vote of 421 to 1, and H.R. 2930 (Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act), which passed through the House on November 3, 2011 by a vote of 407 to 17. The overwhelming support by representatives in the House for these proposed acts is a very positive sign. Versions of these two proposed acts are now navigating their way through the Senate. The remaining legislative initiatives remain under debate in the House or the Senate and have not been passed by either chamber. 

This article summarizes all of these proposed acts. Appendix A to this article is a chart that summarizes the major provisions of these proposed acts, and Appendix B to this article is a chart that compares the proposed “crowdfunding” acts described in more detail below.

MORE... 

Written by John L. Nicholson

On October 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance released CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 2 - Cybersecurity (the “Guidance”), which is intended to instruct companies on whether and how to disclose the impact of the risk and cost of cybersecurity incidents (both malicious and accidental) on a company.

This represents a reminder that companies should think about cybersecurity and data breach incidents when deciding how to fulfill their obligations under the SEC’s existing disclosure requirements.  Up to this point, the market’s focus has been on how U.S. law requires disclosure of data breaches affecting personal information of specific types. Other security incidents only became public knowledge because of unofficial disclosures or because of their effect (e.g., a denial of service attack).  Now, the SEC has made it clear that the risks associated with cyber incidents, the costs of mitigating those risks, and the consequences of a cyber incident may rise to the level of materiality that would require disclosure to investors and regulatory authorities.

MORE...