Articles Posted in Broker Dealers

Published on:

By

Written by:  Jessica R. Bogo

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) hearing panel held that FINRA’s own rules prohibiting judicial class action waivers in broker-dealer customer arbitration agreements are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and unenforceable. Once this decision becomes final, it will likely change the landscape of broker-dealer arbitrations. Many other broker-dealers will adopt a judicial class action waiver in their customer arbitration agreements and end decades of securities class action lawsuits, which generally provide little benefit to class members.

In a thoughtful 48-page decision, a FINRA hearing panel on Thursday, February 21, 2013 followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011) (“Concepcion”) and held that FINRA Rules prohibiting broker-dealers from adopting judicial class-action waivers in customer arbitration agreements are unenforceable and preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). For more background on Concepcion and recent California litigation post-Concepcion, please see our prior client alerts including, “Recent Maverick Ruling in CA Appellate Court Finds Concepcion Does Not Overrule Gentry.”

The decision arises from a Complaint filed on February 1, 2012 by FINRA’s Department of Enforcement against Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”). In September 2011, Schwab added a provision to its pre- dispute arbitration agreements requiring customers to “waive any right to bring a class action, or any type of representative action” against Schwab or any related third party “in court.” The Complaint alleged that the waiver violated FINRA’s Rules prohibiting self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) from adopting pre-dispute arbitration agreements that prohibited customers from filing judicial class actions.

READ MORE…

 

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

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. 

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay Gould and Peter Chess

On July 1, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, which prohibited an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the advisers or certain of its executives or employees make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates.  Rule 206(4)-5, also known as the Pay to Play Rule, also included a third-party solicitor ban that prohibited an adviser or its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third-party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third-party was an SEC-registered investment adviser or a registered broker or dealer subject to pay to play restrictions. 

As originally adopted, the third-party solicitor ban’s compliance date was September 13, 2011.  However, not long after the Pay to Play Rule was adopted, Congress created a new category of SEC registrants called “municipal advisors” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Municipal advisors include persons that undertake a solicitation of a municipal entity.  The SEC then amended the Pay to Play Rule on June 22, 2011 in order to add municipal advisors to the category of registered entities excepted from the third-party solicitor ban and extended the original compliance date of the third-party solicitor ban.

On June 8, 2012, the SEC released a final rule that extends (for a second time) the compliance date for the third-party solicitor ban.  The SEC explained that it was necessary to ensure an orderly transition for advisers and third-party solicitors as well as to provide additional time for them to adjust compliance policies and procedures after the transition.  The new compliance date for the third-party solicitor ban will now be nine months after the required registration date for municipal advisers with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  This compliance date has yet to be finalized as the SEC has not yet adopted the applicable rule.

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay Gould and Peter Chess

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) released new guidance last month regarding new FINRA Rule 2111 (the “Suitability Rule”), which requires a broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through reasonable diligence by the broker-dealer.  The Suitability Rule codifies and clarifies the three main suitability obligations that previously had been discussed largely in case law:

  • Reasonable-basis suitability.  A broker must perform reasonable diligence to understand the nature of the recommended security or investment strategy involving a security or securities, as well as the potential risks and rewards, and determine whether the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors based on that understanding.
  • Customer-specific suitability.  A broker must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommendation of a security or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the particular customer based on the customer’s investment profile.
  • Quantitative suitability.  A broker who has control over a customer account must have a reasonable basis to believe that a series of recommended securities transactions are not excessive.

In general, the Suitability Rule retains the core features of the previous National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) suitability rule, NASD Rule 2310.  However, the new Suitability Rule imposes broader obligations on firms regarding recommendations of investment strategies.  Existing guidance and interpretations regarding suitability obligations continue to apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the new rule.  The guidance provided by FINRA on the Suitability Rule includes the following:

  • The suitability requirement that a broker make only those recommendations that are consistent with the customer’s best interests prohibits a broker from placing their interests ahead of the customer’s interests.
  • The customer’s investment profile is critical to the assessment of the suitability of a particular recommendation.
  • The recently passed Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) does not affect the suitability obligations regarding private placements, including those private placements made in reliance on the JOBS Act’s elimination of the prohibition on general solicitation.
  • The term “investment strategy” is to be interpreted broadly and would apply to cases where the strategy results in a securities transaction or even mentions a specific security.
  • The extent to which a firm needs to document its suitability analysis depends on an assessment of the customer’s investment profile and the complexity of the recommended security or investment strategy.
  • Although the reasonableness of a firm’s effort to perform “reasonable diligence” will depend on the facts and circumstances, asking a customer for the information ordinarily will suffice.

The institutional-customer exemption under NASD Rule 2130 and its definition of “institutional customer” has been replaced with the more common definition of “institutional account.”  In addition, the new institutional-customer exemption focuses on whether (1) a broker has a reasonable basis to believe the institutional customer is capable of evaluating risks independently and (2) the institutional customer affirmatively indicates that it is exercising independent judgment (a new requirement).

Published on:

By

Written by:  Jay B. Gould, Michael Wu and Peter Chess

Note: Pillsbury and KPMG, along with the California Hedge Fund Association, will be sponsoring a “Managers Only” event on the JOBS Act and the new world of “general solicitation” for Funds on June 14.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act” or the “Act”), signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012, seeks to encourage economic growth through the easing of certain restrictions on capital formation and by improving access to capital.  The JOBS Act contains a number of provisions that will directly impact private funds and their general partners, managers and sponsors.  Below is a summary of the Act’s provisions that directly affect private funds, including ongoing requirements for funds that at this time do not appear to be affected by the Act.

Section 4 of the Securities Act.  The JOBS Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), so that offers and sales exempt under Rule 506 of Regulation D will not be deemed public offerings as a result of general advertising or general solicitation.  Private funds relying on the exception in Section 3(c)(1) (“3(c)(1) Fund”) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“Investment Company Act”), will be able to continue to avail themselves of this exception so long as all of their investors are accredited investors, as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D (“Accredited Investors”).  We expect that private funds relying on the exception in 3(c)(7) (“3(c)(7) Fund”) of the Investment Company Act will obtain the greatest benefit from the JOBS Act, as these funds, which accept only “qualified purchasers,” as defined in Section 2(a)(51) of the Investment Company Act, may now have up to 2000 investors (as discussed below) before they would be required to register as a public reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”).  3(c)(1) Funds will continue to be limited to 99 investors, although a fund manager may organize and offer both a 3(c)(1) Fund and a 3(c)(7) Fund with the same investment objective and strategies without the two funds being subject to “integration” under the Securities Act.

General Solicitation and General Advertising.  The JOBS Act requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to amend Regulation D under the Securities Act to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitation and general advertising for offerings under Rule 506, provided that all purchasers are Accredited Investors.  The Act mandates that the SEC implement rule amendments ninety days after the enactment of the Act, or by July 4, 2012.

It is unlikely that the SEC will be able to meet this deadline given the requirement to provide public notice and comment prior to adopting any final rules; accordingly, these rule amendments are expected to be adopted by the fall with very little transition period.  Although the Act leaves little in the way of discretion to the SEC in the rulemaking process there are two areas in which the SEC may seek to provide substantive guidance.  The SEC is required to amend Regulation D such that any issuers relying on Rule 506 must take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers are Accredited Investors.  Some observers believe that the SEC may require issuers that avail themselves of the general advertising provisions to obtain sufficient financial information from prospective purchasers so that the “accredited status” of such investors can be more precisely determined.  This could take the form of requiring all such issuers to obtain an income statement or verified financial statement from investors.  The other area in which the SEC may attempt to provide additional oversight is with respect to the offering of private fund interests through broker-dealers. 

Brokers and Dealers.  The JOBS Act provides that with regard to securities offered and sold under Rule 506 and subject to certain conditions, registration as a broker or dealer under Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act will not be required for certain persons solely because of the performance of specific functions.[1]  This exemption from registration is available only if such persons: (i) receive no compensation in connection with the purchase and sale of the securities; (ii) do not have possession of customer funds or securities in connection with the purchase and sale of securities; and (iii) are not subject to statutory disqualification (sometimes referred to as “bad boy” provisions).  Although it is uncertain at this time, the SEC may take this opportunity to require private funds that avail themselves of the ability to advertise generally to conduct all offers and sales of their fund interests through a registered broker-dealer.  The SEC realizes that as a result of the fast moving and innovative private funds industry, the regulator lost control of Regulation D as well as the “issuer’s exemption” in Rule 3a4-1 under the Exchange Act, the exemption that fund managers rely upon to offer their securities directly to purchasers.  It is not clear that Rule 3a4-1 was ever intended for this purpose, and the SEC may take this opportunity to clarify how offers and sales are conducted generally by private fund managers.

Record Holders.  The JOBS Act increases from 500 to 2,000 the number of record holders of equity securities an issuer may have before the issuer is required to register under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, so long as the number of non-Accredited Investors does not exceed 499.  3(c)(1) Funds will be unable to have any non-Accredited Investors if they want to employ general advertising even though, under Regulation D rules that predate the JOBS Act, sales could be made to up to 35 non-Accredited Investors (with no general solicitation).  There is an outstanding question as to whether the SEC will “grandfather” in existing non-Accredited Investors in 3(c)(1) Funds, or if perhaps some form of Rule 506 will survive whereby sales to non-Accredited Investors will be permissible if no general solicitation takes place.      

Continuing Restrictions and Obligations.  Although the JOBS Act will potentially ease the burdens presented by capital raising for private funds, the following should be noted: 

  • Private fund offerings pursuant to Rule 506 will continue to be subject to the anti-fraud provisions of federal and state securities laws and the restrictions on advertising found in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”).  For example, Rule 206(4)-1 of the Advisers Act (the advertising rule) and its general prohibition against advertisements that are false and misleading still necessitates compliance.  Managers of private funds that advertise generally must understand the advertising rules against “testimonials” in their public marketing materials.  To be “liked” on Facebook or similarly endorsed on other social networking sites would likely be considered to be an illegal testimonial by the SEC which could result in and administrative action accompanied by fines and penalties.   
  • Private funds should continue to rely on the guidance provided in the Clover Capital Management, Inc. SEC no-action letter and the subsequent line of letters when contemplating activities such as performance presentations by following practices so as not to present misleading performance results.  Further, private funds should continue to comply with Rule 206(4)-8 of the Advisers Act and its prohibition on making untrue statements or omitting material facts or otherwise engaging in fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative conduct regarding interactions with investors in pooled investment vehicles.  To the extent a private fund manager avails itself of the ability to advertise past performance, special care will need to be taken to ensure that all documents are consistent and performance information is presented in a manner that is complete and accurate.
  • Private funds should consider and continue to comply with advertising and disclosure rules as applicable to registered advisers and members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  FINRA rules also apply to broker-dealers acting as placement agents or intermediaries in Rule 506 transactions.  Private funds making use of exemptions from registration under the Advisers Act and/or the Investment Company Act must continue to comply with the restrictions set forth in such exemptions.  For example, although the JOBS Act provides that offers and sales exempt from registration under Rule 506 will not be deemed public offerings by virtue of the use of general advertising and general solicitation, 3(c)(1) Funds must not exceed the one hundred beneficial owner limit.

Foreign Private Advisers.  A “foreign private adviser” that qualifies for the exemption from registration under the Advisers Act is an adviser that has no place of business in the U.S., fewer than 15 U.S. clients, less than $25 million attributable to U.S. clients and does not hold itself out generally to the public in the U.S. as an investment adviser.  The SEC in the past has construed certain types of advertising, including information available on websites, as an example of an adviser holding itself out to the public in the U.S. as an investment adviser.  Given the increased freedom for advertising under the JOBS Act, the SEC may look more closely at advisers taking advantage of the foreign private adviser exemption and whether any activities that could be construed as advertising may violate the terms of the exemption.

Regulation S.  Regulation S under the Securities Act, the safe harbor from registration for offshore sales of securities to non-U.S. persons, does not allow for “directed selling efforts” in the U.S.  It remains to be seen if general solicitation or advertising in connection with the amendments to Regulation D will be seen as “directed selling efforts” under Regulation S and whether the SEC will clarify how this will affect the potential use of Regulation S in connection with offerings under Rule 506.

 State Blue Sky Laws.  Many private funds have relied on self-executing exemptions in certain states in order to avoid filings and/or fees required under applicable state statutes or rules.  These self-executing exemptions are commonly conditioned on a prohibition on general solicitation or general advertising.  Private funds employing general solicitation and/or advertising in reliance on the amended Rule 506 should note the mechanics of such Blue Sky laws of the states where securities are being offered and sold and comply accordingly.

[1]   This applies to persons that: (a) maintain a platform or mechanism that permits the offer, sale, purchase, or negotiation of or with respect to securities, or permits general solicitations, general advertisements, or similar or related activities by issuers of such securities, whether online, in person, or through any other means; (b) co-invest in such securities; or (c) provide ancillary services with respect to such securities.

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay B. Gould and Peter Chess

On April 18, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) voted to adopt rules defining “swap dealer,” “security-based swap dealer,” “major swap participant,” and “major security-based swap participant,” among other terms, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”).  The Dodd-Frank Act assigns to the SEC the regulatory authority for security-based swaps[1] and assigns to the CFTC the regulatory authority for swaps. 

Under the adopted rules, the definitions are as follows:

A swap dealer is defined as any person who:

  • Holds itself out as a dealer in swaps;
  • Makes a market in swaps;
  • Regularly enters into swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own account; or
  • Engages in activity causing itself to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in swaps.

The definition of security-based swap dealer tracks the definition of swap dealer, with “security-based swap” inserted where “swap” appears.

A major swap participant is a person that satisfies any one of the three parts of the definition:

  • A person that maintains a “substantial position” in any of the major swap categories, excluding positions held for hedging or mitigating commercial risk and positions maintained by certain employee benefit plans for hedging or mitigating risks in the operation of the plan.
  • A person whose outstanding swaps create “substantial counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States banking system or financial markets.”
  • Any “financial entity” that is “highly leveraged relative to the amount of capital such entity holds and that is not subject to capital requirements established by an appropriate Federal banking agency” and that maintains a “substantial position” in any of the major swap categories.

The definition of major security-based swap participant tracks the definition of major swap participant with “security based-swap” inserted where “swap” appears.

The newly adopted rules contain further definitions for the terms “substantial position,” “hedging or mitigating commercial risk,” “substantial counterparty exposure,” “financial entity,” “highly leveraged,” and “eligible contract participant.”  In addition, the adopting release provides interpretative guidance on the definitions of swap dealer and security-based swap dealer, and the CFTC provides further details on the exclusion for swaps in connection with originating a loan, the exclusion of certain hedging swaps and the exclusion of swaps between affiliates.  Finally, the new rules call for a de minimis exemption from the definition of swap dealer and security-based swap dealer wherein a person who engages in a de minimis amount of swap or security-based swap dealing will be exempt from the respective definition.  

The SEC and the CFTC adopted the new rules under joint rulemaking, and the SEC rules become effective 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, although dealers and major participants will not have to register with the SEC until the dates that will be provided in the SEC’s final rules for the registration of dealers and major participants.  The CFTC must adopt further rules defining the term “swap,” and swap dealers and major swap participants will need to register by the later of July 16, 2012, or 60 days after the publication of CFTC rules defining “swap.”

The full text of the SEC press release and fact sheet is available here.  The full text of the CFTC release is available here.

[1]               Security-based swaps are broadly defined as swaps based on (i) a single security, (ii) a loan, (iii) a narrow-based group or index of securities, or (iv) events relating to a single issuer or issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index. 

Published on:

By

Written by Peter J. Chess

On November 30, 2011, FINRA and the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) released a National Exam Risk Alert on effective procedures and policies for broker-dealer branch inspections. This follows other recent guidance for broker-dealers regarding the Market Access Rule and reasonable investigations in Regulation D Offerings, in addition to recent FINRA sanctions against broker-dealers related to Regulation D Offerings.

Under Sections 15(b)(4)(E) and 15(b)(6)(A) of the Exchange Act, the SEC can impose sanctions on any firm or any person that fails to reasonably supervise someone subject to supervision that violates the federal securities laws. A broker-dealer can defend such a charge with a showing of effective procedures and policies designed to prevent and detect potential violations.

The National Exam Risk Alert jointly released on November 30 by FINRA and the OCIE (“November 30 Alert”) concerns broker-dealer branch inspections which are required by the Exchange Act and FINRA rules. Examination staff have observed that firms that execute these inspections well typically:

  • tailor the focus of branch exams to the business conducted in that branch and assess the risks specific to that business;
  • schedule the frequency and intensity of exams based on underlying risk;
  • engage in a significant percentage of unannounced exams selected based on both risk analysis and random selection;
  • deploy sufficiently senior branch office examiners to conduct the examinations; and
  • design procedures to avoid conflicts of interest with examiners.

The November 30 Alert also lists typical findings about firms with deficiencies in their inspection process, including the utilization of generic examination procedures for all branch offices; the use of novice or unseasoned branch office examiners; the performance of “check the box” inspections; and, the lack of adequate procedures and policies.

The November 30 Alert is the second such Alert released this quarter by the OCIE. On September 29, 2011, OCIE released a National Exam Risk Alert  (September 29 Alert) regarding the master/sub-account structure and potential risks of noncompliance for broker-dealers with the recently adopted Rule 15c3-5 (the Market Access Rule).

The Market Access Rule requires broker-dealers to have a system of risk management control and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory and other risks of the business activity associated with providing a customer or other person with market access. Deficiencies in risk management control and supervisory procedures raise significant regulatory concerns with respect to money laundering, insider trading, market manipulation, account intrusions, information security, unregistered broker-dealer activity, and excessive leverage.

Recent FINRA Enforcement Actions Against Broker-Dealers

On September 29, 2011, FINRA also announced it had sanctioned another eight firms and ten individuals and ordered restitution totaling more than $3.2 million due to violations related to private placements. FINRA previously announced similar sanctions against broker-dealers in April 2011, and the most recent announcement brings the total to ten firms and seventeen individuals sanctioned by FINRA since April for involvement in problematic private placements.

The sanctions stem from a variety of issues uncovered by FINRA related to firms selling private placement offerings, including the lack of a reasonable basis for recommending the offering; failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the offering; failure to have adequate supervisory systems in place; failure to conduct adequate due diligence of offerings; lack of reasonable grounds regarding the suitability of the offering for customers; and, lack of reasonable grounds to allow registered representatives of firms to continue selling the offerings, despite numerous “red flags.”

These sanctions follow FINRA’s release of a Regulatory Notice in April 2010 (“April 2010 Notice”) regarding the obligation of broker-dealers to conduct reasonable investigations in Regulation D, or private placement, offerings. The April 2010 Notice provided guidance on many of the issues at the heart of the recent sanctions by FINRA related to private placements. The April 2010 Notice noted that broker-dealers had many requirements triggered by private placement offerings, including: a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation concerning the security and the issuer’s representations about it; a duty to possess reasonable grounds to recommend transactions that are suitable for the customer; and, other specific responsibilities that could be triggered based on specific factors with each transaction.

Published on:

By

Written by Ildiko Duckor

An entity that meets the definition of a “Large Trader” after October 3, 2011 must file its initial Form 13H with the SEC by December 1, 2011 to be assigned a large trader identification number (LTID).  The filing is done electronically through the SEC’s EDGAR system.  The LTID must be disclosed to registered broker-dealers effecting transactions on behalf of the Large Trader. 

If you as a general partner or investment adviser (including any entities or individuals over which you have control, e.g., the right to vote or direct the vote of 25% or more of a class of voting securities of an entity) have investment discretion over aggregate transactions in exchange-listed securities that equal or exceed the Identifying Activity Level of: (i) 2 million shares or $20 million during any calendar day or (ii) 20 million shares or $200 million during any calendar month, you may qualify as a Large Trader and may have to file a Form 13H. 

When calculating the “Identifying Activity Level:” (i) aggregate all transactions during the specified period (one day and/or one month) (ii) for all “NMS securities” (national market securities, generally (exchange-listed securities including equities and purchases and sales (but not exercises) of options) and (iii) exclude the specified transactions that are exempt from consideration (as listed in the below-linked documents). 

Form 13H filing is required to be filed annually with the SEC within 45 days after the end of a Large Trader’s full calendar year. 

A full text of the SEC Final Rule and Form 13H is available here.

Please contact the IFIM team for assistance.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On October 18, 2011, the SEC released a notice of FINRA’s filing of Proposed Rule 5123 (the “Proposed Rule”) which would require FINRA members and associated persons to: 1) provide to investors disclosure documents in connection with private placements prior to sale and 2) file with FINRA such disclosure documents within 15 days after the date of first sale and any subsequent amendments.  These proposed changes would significantly affect fund managers who offer or sell their funds that are exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act through third party marketers, nearly all of which are required to be registered as broker-dealers.

Pre-sale requirement to provide disclosure documents to investors

The Proposed Rule would require FINRA members and associated persons that offer or sell private placements or participate in the preparation of private placement memoranda (“PPM”), term sheets or other disclosure documents in connection with such private placements, to provide such disclosure documents to investors prior to sale.  The disclosure documents must describe the anticipated use of offering proceeds, the amount and type of offering expenses, and the amount and type of offering compensation.  Much of this information is currently captured in the Form D filing that most fund managers file with the SEC, but under the Proposed Rule, would go directly to investors in connection with the sale of fund interests.

As a practical matter, this likely means increased scrutiny of hedge fund and other private fund offerings by FINRA, as well as the likelihood that third party marketers that sell on behalf of hedge funds may request greater or more enhanced indemnification from fund managers in the placement agency agreement between the third party marketer and the fund manager.  Accordingly, fund managers who use third party marketers to market their funds must keep their fund documents updated, taking into account all changes to fund strategies, material performance issues (to the extent applicable), regulatory changes and management personnel changes, to name a few.      

Post-sale requirement to notice file with FINRA

The Proposed Rule would also require each FINRA member and associated person to notice file with FINRA by filing the PPM, term sheet or other disclosure documents no later than 15 days after the date of first sale.  In addition, any amendments to such disclosure documents or disclosures required by the Proposed Rule would have to be filed no later than 15 days after such documents are provided to any investor or prospective investor.  To the extent these documents are provided to investors, they would also be subject to the strict liability standard of Rule 206(4)-8 under the Investment Advisers Act to which all fund managers are already subject.  Accordingly, fund managers must be careful to keep all of their documents current under the materiality standards of state and Federal securities laws.

Offerings Exempted from the Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule would exempt several types of private placements including offerings sold only to any one or more of the following purchasers: 

  •  institutional accounts, as defined in NASD Rule 3110(c)(4);
  • qualified purchasers, as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act;  (Accordingly, 3(c)(7) funds would be exempt from the Proposed Rule.)
  • qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
  • investment companies, as defined in Section 3 of the Investment Company Act;
  • an entity composed exclusively of qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
  • banks, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act; and
  • employees and affiliates of the issuer.

In addition, the Rule would exempt the following types of offerings:

  • offerings of exempted securities, as defined by Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act;
  • offerings made pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A or SEC Regulation S;
  • offerings of exempt securities with short term maturities under Section 3(a)(3) of the Securities Act;
  • offerings of subordinated loans under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1, Appendix D;
  • offerings of “variable contracts” as defined in Rule 2320(b)(2);
  • offerings of modified guaranteed annuity contracts and modified guaranteed life insurance policies, as referenced in Rule 5110(b)(8)(E);
  • offerings of non-convertible debt or preferred securities by issuers that meet the eligibility criteria for incorporation by reference in Forms S-3 and F-3;
  • offerings of securities issued in conversions, stock splits and restructuring transactions that are executed by an already existing investor without the need for additional consideration or investments on the part of the investor;
  • offerings of securities of a commodity pool operated by a commodity pool operator as defined under Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act; and
  • offerings filed with FINRA under Rules 2310, 5110, 5121 and 5122.

Confidential treatment

Documents and information filed with FINRA pursuant to the Proposed Rule would be given confidential treatment.  FINRA would use such documents and information solely for the purpose of determining compliance with FINRA rules or other applicable regulatory purposes.  In addition, FINRA would afford confidential treatment to any comment or similar letters by FINRA and thus could not be discoverable by a litigant through a legal action.

A full text of the SEC Notice and Proposed Rule is available here.