Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

Written by Michael Wu and Judy Deng

Earlier this year, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) issued its Administrative Measures over Pilot Projects on Settlement of Overseas Direct Investments in Renminbi (the “PBoC Measures”).  The PBoC Measures permit the PBoC, under a pilot project, to loan renminbi to Chinese investors to fund outbound acquisitions.  The PBoC Measures are expected to have a positive impact on leveraged buy-out (LBO) firms in China that acquire interests in non-Chinese companies.  Effectively, the PBoC Measures extends the M&A loan capacity of Chinese banks from Chinese domestic M&A transactions to overseas, non-Chinese M&A transactions.  For a more detailed discussion of the PBoC Measures, please click here.

Published on:

By

Written by Michael Wu

California’s Department of Corporations (the “Department”) intends to issue emergency regulations to address the elimination of the “private adviser exemption” under Section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”).  Currently, an investment adviser in California may rely on the private adviser exemption by virtue of California Department of Corporations Rule 260.204.9, which specifically refers to the private adviser exemption under Section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act.  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will eliminate the private adviser exemption under Section 203(b)(3) effective as of July 21, 2011, which in turn would affect a California investment adviser’s ability to rely on Rule 260.204.9.  The Department will issue emergency regulations amending Rule 260.204.9 to preserve the status quo.  Therefore, California investment advisers that currently rely on the exemption from registration for private advisers will be able to continue to rely on that exemption until the Department adopts a final rule regarding private fund advisers.  For more information about this new development please click here.

Published on:

By

Written by Michael Wu

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) recently published a notice of its intent to raise the dollar thresholds that would need to be satisfied in order for an investment adviser to charge its investors a performance fee.  Currently, under Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, an investment adviser may charge its investors a performance fee if (i) the investor has at least $750,000 under management with the investment adviser, or (ii) the investment adviser reasonably believes that the investor has a net worth of more than $1.5 million.  To comply with the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC must adjust these dollar amounts for inflation by July 21, 2011 and every five years thereafter.

Thus, the SEC intends to issue an order that would revise the dollar amount tests to $1 million for assets under management and $2 million for net worth.  The SEC is also proposing to amend Rule 205-3 to: (i) provide the method for calculating future inflation adjustments of the dollar amount tests, (ii) exclude the value of a person’s primary residence from the net worth test, and (iii) modify the transition provisions of the rule.  The SEC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould, Ildi Duckor and Michael Wu

On March 22, 2011, U.S. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), sent a sharply worded letter to Chairman Mary Schapiro of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), in which he demanded that the SEC justify several of its rules regarding raising capital, including the “quiet period” that restricts a company’s communications ahead of an initial public offering (“IPO”) and the rules that limit the number of investors in private companies to 499. The immediate impetus of this letter (the “Issa Letter”) appeared to be the recent decision by Facebook to issue shares exclusively to non-U.S. investors due to the requirement for a private company to file financial statements with the SEC once it has more than 499 U.S. equity holders, as well as the general decline of the overall IPO market in the U.S.

The Issa Letter accuses the SEC of stifling capital creation and causing the decline of the IPO market in the U.S. by clinging to obsolete and inflexible laws and regulations. Chairman Issa asks whether the decline in public equity listings and issuances have been driven by the expansion and complexity of SEC regulations, the expansion of personal liability under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the new uncertainty surrounding regulations to be issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), securities class action lawsuits and the expansion of other regulatory, legal or compliance burdens. Chairman Issa railed against the prohibition on promotional statements made between the time that a registration statement has been filed and the time it becomes effective as a violation of an issuer’s rights under the First Amendment. Chairman Issa further finds fault in the inability of the SEC to fashion rules to permit effective early stage capital formation, accuses the SEC of certain conflicts of interest and ineptitude in its staff, and suggests that “sophisticated” investors, regardless of whether they satisfy the “accredited” investor standard, should be permitted to invest in private placements.

On April 6, 2011, Chairman Schapiro responded to Chairman Issa in a detailed and heavily footnoted tome (the “Shapiro Letter”) that sought to correct some of the basic misunderstandings in the Issa Letter. The Schapiro Letter provides an interesting and brief history of the development of private offerings, the development of the private markets, the IPO process, the rationale behind public reporting, and the SEC’s views towards capital raising strategies. Much of this discussion is either relevant to investment fund managers or directly on point with their businesses, and certainly worth a read.

Chairman Issa raises some interesting points and the combative tone of his letter should not be a reason to simply dismiss his concerns. There are, however, two interesting questions that Chairman Issa could have raised with the SEC, but did not, the answers to which may have been even more productive to the discussion.

First, does the SEC believe that if it was self-funded, it would be more responsive to the needs of the capital markets and be able to better balance its dual mandates of creating efficient capital markets and protecting shareholders? It should be noted that early drafts of the Dodd-Frank Act stated that the SEC was to be self-funded, but that language was later removed when our two political parties agreed on specific budget numbers for the SEC, which they believed would permit the SEC to meet its significant new and continuing obligations. Once the Dodd-Frank Act became law, a bi-partisan Congress promptly ignored these funding mandates and has continued to impede the effectiveness of the SEC through the budget process.

Second, does the SEC believe that significantly increasing the number of investors to which a private company can sell shares, without providing full and fair disclosure, would shrink the public markets, make fewer investment opportunities available to ordinary investors, and accelerate the wealth divide that is threatening to destabilize the U.S.? The securities laws were meant to level the playing field among investors, and the SEC over the years has attempted to enforce this mandate through the registration process and its enforcement actions. Larry Ribstein provides a thoughtful view of this dilemma here.

The balance between effective regulation for investor protection and efficient capital markets to encourage responsible investment is a delicate one that we can expect to be treated quite indelicately in the current political climate.