Articles Posted in Private Equity

Published on:

By and

In the Federal Register for July 23, 2015, the Treasury Department published proposed regulations regarding the circumstances under which partnership allocations and distributions will be treated as disguised payments for services. These proposed regulations are aimed at attempts by investment fund managers to convert ordinary, management fee income into tax-favored long-term capital gains through the use of management fee waivers.

The proposed regulations draw heavily on the legislative history to Internal Revenue Code section 707(a)(2)(A), enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-369), which provides that allocations and distributions to a partner by a partnership will be disregarded and instead treated as disguised payments for services if the performance of such services and the related direct or indirect allocation and distribution, taken together, are properly characterized as a transaction between the partnership and a partner acting other than in his capacity as a member of the partnership.

READ MORE…

Read this article and additional publications at pillsburylaw.com/publications-and-presentations.  You can also download a copy of the Client Alert.

Related post: Proposed Treasury Regulations May End Private…

Published on:

By , and

It has been a common practice of private equity firms to convert their right to receive management fees from the funds they manage into the right to receive profits and distributions from the funds through management fee waiver arrangements.  As a result of these arrangements, the firms achieve a lower tax rate because the profits and distributions they receive in place of the fees usually receive capital gains treatment while the fees would otherwise have generated ordinary income, subject to higher tax rates.  In the proposed regulations, the IRS suggests that these arrangements may be disguised payments for services and result in ordinary income anyways.

While the proposed regulations would be effective when final regulations are published, the IRS has indicated that it believes the principles reflected in the proposed regulations generally reflect Congressional intent—signaling that it may apply these principles to existing arrangements even prior to the adoption of final regulations.

Read the proposed rule in the Federal Register HERE.

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

On July 15, 2015, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2015-1, adopting a very expansive interpretation of the definition of employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) under which many workers currently treated as independent contractors will need to be reclassified as employees. The Administrator’s Interpretation identifies the issue of a worker’s economic dependence as the most important factor in distinguishing between independent contractors and employees. The Administrator’s Interpretation puts employers on notice that “the FLSA covers workers of an employer even if the employer does not exercise the requisite control over the workers, assuming the workers are economically dependent on the employer.”

READ MORE…

Read this article and additional publications at pillsburylaw.com/publications-and-presentations.

Published on:

By

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has extended the deadline to file Form BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, to June 30, 2015, for all new filers.

For information on Form BE-10 filing, please read our recent article HERE.

Further information on BE-10 is available at the BEA website.

 

Published on:

By

This article was originally published in Tech City News on May 6, 2015.

Much has been made of the UK’s growing fintech industry. Research published by Accenture in 2014 showed the UK and Ireland enjoyed a growth rate outstripping the rest of Europe and Silicon Valley over the past five years.

However, the more mature US technology sector and investment culture means UK businesses lag behind their US counterparts in attracting the investment to move them through the stages of growth. So what can early-stage, consumer-facing fintech companies do to make themselves more attractive to investment from private equity houses and venture capitalists?

READ MORE…

Published on:

By
  • Mandatory reporting required by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Form BE-10 – 2014 Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad
  • Investment managers, general partners, hedge funds and private equity funds are among those that may have to file

What is BE-10?

BE-10 is a benchmark survey of U.S. direct investment abroad, conducted once every five years by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (“BEA”) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The purpose of the survey is to obtain economic data on the operations of U.S. parent companies and their foreign affiliates. The BE-10 survey is conducted pursuant to the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act, and the filing of reports is mandatory pursuant to Section 5(b)(2) of that Act. BE-10 reports are kept confidential and used for statistical analysis.

What is the filing deadline?

May 29, 2015 – if you are a U.S. Reporter (defined below) filing to report fewer than 50 Foreign Affiliates (defined below).

June 30, 2015 – if you are a U.S. Reporter filing to report 50 or more Foreign Affiliates.

Extensions. The BEA will consider reasonable requests for extensions if received before the applicable due date of the report. Extension requests should “enumerate the substantive reasons necessitating the extension” on the form provided by the BEA.

Who must file?

All U.S. persons that had direct or indirect ownership or control (each, a “U.S. Reporter”) of at least 10%[i] of the voting stock of a foreign business enterprise (a “Foreign Affiliate”) at any time during the entity’s 2014 fiscal year must file.

Any U.S. general partner or investment manager of a private fund could be a U.S. Reporter, and any hedge fund, private equity fund, or other private fund could be either a U.S. Reporter or a Foreign Affiliate, if they meet the above criteria.

READ MORE…

____________________

[i] A U.S. Reporter’s ownership interest in a Foreign Affiliate may be held indirectly through a directly held Foreign Affiliate that owned the given foreign enterprise. You must “look through” all intervening foreign enterprises in the chain to determine whether you hold a foreign business enterprise to the extent of 10% or more. To calculate your ultimate ownership percentage, multiply the direct ownership percentage in the first Foreign Affiliate by that first Foreign Affiliate’s direct ownership percentage in the second enterprise in the chain, multiplied by the direct ownership percentage for all other intervening enterprises in the ownership chain, until you reach the ownership percentage in the final foreign business enterprise. To illustrate, if a U.S. Reporter owned 50% of Foreign Affiliate A directly, and A owned 75% of foreign business enterprise B which, in turn, owned 80% of foreign business enterprise C, the U.S. Reporter’s percentage of indirect ownership of B would be 37.5% (the product of the first two percentages), its indirect ownership of C would be 30% (the product of all three percentages), and B and C (as well as A) would be considered Foreign Affiliates of the U.S. Reporter.

Read this article and additional publications at pillsburylaw.com/publications-and-presentations.

Published on:

By

The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) recently released its Examination Priorities for 2015.  The priorities represent certain practices and products that OCIE believes present a potentially higher risk to investors and/or the integrity of the US capital markets.  In 2015, OCIE’s priorities focus on issues involving investment advisers, broker-dealers and transfer agents and are organized into three thematic areas:

  1. Examining important matters to retail investors and investors saving for retirement, such as whether the information, advice, products and services offered is consistent with applicable law.  Specifically, OCIE has identified the following examination priorities:
  • Fee Selection and Reverse Churning – Where an adviser offers a variety of fee arrangements, OCIE will focus on recommendations of account types and whether they are in the best interest of the client at the inception of the arrangement and thereafter, including fees charged, services provided, and disclosures made about such relationships.
  • Sales Practices – OCIE will assess whether registrants are using improper or misleading practices when recommending the movement of retirement assets from employer-sponsored defined contribution plans into other investments and accounts, especially when they pose greater risks and/or charge higher fees.
  • Suitability – OCIE will evaluate registered entities’ recommendations or determinations to invest retirement assets into complex or structured products and higher yield securities and whether the suitability of the recommendations or determinations are consistent with existing legal requirements.
  • Branch Offices – OCIE will focus on registered entities’ supervision of registered representatives and financial adviser representatives in branch offices, and attempt to identify branches that may be deviating from compliance practices of the firm’s home office.
  • Alternative Investment Companies – OCIE will continue to assess alternative investment companies and focus on: (i) leverage, liquidity and valuation policies and practices; (ii) factors relevant to the adequacy of the funds’ internal controls, including staffing, funding, and empowerment of boards, compliance personnel, and back-offices; and (iii) the manner in which such funds are marketed to investors.
  • Fixed Income Companies – OCIE will determine whether mutual funds with significant exposure to interest rate increases have implemented compliance policies and procedures and investment and trading controls sufficient to ensure that their funds’ disclosures are not misleading.
  1. Assessing issues related to market risks.  Specifically, OCIE has identified the following examination priorities:
  • Large Firm Monitoring – OCIE will continue to monitor the largest broker-dealers and asset managers to assess risks at individual firms.
  • Clearing Agencies – OCIE will continue to examine all clearing agencies designated as “systemically important” under the Dodd-Frank Act.
  • Cybersecurity – OCIE will continue to examine broker-dealers and investment advisers’ cybersecurity compliance and controls and expand these examinations to include transfer agents.
  • Potential Equity Order Routing Conflicts – OCIE will assess whether firms are prioritizing trading venues based on payments or credits for order flow in conflict with their best execution duties.
  1. Analyzing data to identify and examine registrants that may be engaging in illegal activity, such as excessive trading and penny stock, pump-and-dump schemes. Specifically, OCIE has identified the following examination priorities:
  • Recidivist Representatives – OCIE will continue to try to identify individuals with a history of misconduct and examine the firms that employ them.
  • Microcap Fraud – OCIE will continue to examine broker-dealers and transfer agents that aid and abet pump-and-dump schemes or market manipulation.
  • Excessive Trading – OCIE will continue to analyze data from clearing brokers to identify and examine brokers that engage in excessive trading.
  • Anti-Money Laundering – OCIE will continue to examine firms that have not filed suspicious activity reports (SARs) or provide customers with direct access to markets of higher-risk jurisdictions.

In addition, OCIE has identified other examination priorities for 2015, including:

  • Municipal Advisors – OCIE intends to examine newly registered municipal advisors to determine whether they comply with recently adopted SEC and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules.
  • Proxy Services – OCIE intends to examine proxy advisory service firms and investment advisers’ compliance with their fiduciary duty in voting proxies on behalf of investors.
  • Never-Before-Examined Investment Companies – OCIE will conduct focused, risk-based examinations of registered investment company complexes that haven’t been examined before.
  • Fees and Expenses in Private Equity – this continues to be an area that OCIE is focused on.
  • Transfer Agents – OCIE intends to examine transfer agents, particularly those involved with microcap securities and private offerings.

Published on:

By

Annual Compliance Obligations—What You Need To Know

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”) and Commodity Pool Operators (“CPOs”) or Commodity Trading Advisors (“CTAs”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) 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, CPOs and CTAs (collectively, “Managers”).  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.

List of annual compliance deadlines:

State registered advisers pay IARD fee November-December (of 2014)
Form 13F (for 12/31/14 quarter-end) February 17, 2015*
Form 13H annual filing February 17, 2015
Schedule 13G annual amendment February 17, 2015
Registered CTA Form PR (for December 31, 2014 year-end) February 17, 2015
TIC Form SLT January 23, 2015 (for December 2014)
TIC Form SHCA March 6, 2015
TIC B Forms Monthly report (December 2014) – by January 15, 2014Quarterly report (December 31, 2014) – by January 20, 2014
Affirm CPO exemption March 2, 2015
Registered Large CPO Form CPO-PQR December 31 quarter-end report March 2, 2015
Registered CPOs filing Form PF in lieu of Form CPO-PQR December 31 quarter-end report March 31, 2015
Registered Mid-Size and Small CPO Form CPO-PQR year-end report March 31, 2015
SEC registered advisers and ERAs pay IARD fee Before submission of Form ADV annual amendment by March 31, 2015
Annual ADV update March 31, 2015
Delivery of Brochure April 30, 2015
Delivery of audited financial statements (for December 31, 2014 year-end) April 30, 2015
California Finance Lender License annual report (for December 31, 2014 year- end) March 15, 2015
Form PF filers pay IARD fee Before submission of Form PF
Form PF for large liquidity fund advisers (for December 31, 2014 quarter end) January 15, 2015
Form PF for large hedge fund advisers (for December 31, 2014 quarter end) March 2, 2015
Form PF  for smaller private fund advisers and large private equity fund advisers (for December 31, 2014 fiscal year-end) April 30, 2015
FBAR Form FinCEN Report 114 (for persons meeting the filing threshold in 2014 and those persons whose filing due date for reporting was previously extended by Notices 2013-1, 2012-2, 2012-1, 2011-2 and 2011-1) June 30, 2015
FATCA information reports filing for 2014 by participating FFIs March 31, 2015
Form D annual amendment One year anniversary from last amendment filing.

* Reflects an extended due date under Exchange Act Rule 0-3.  If the due date of filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, a report is considered timely filed if it is filed on the first business day following the due date.

CONTINUE READING…

Published on:

By

By William M. Sullivan, Jr. and Jay B. Gould

Under the Second Circuit’s new ruling, prosecutors have two large hurdles they must clear to convict under securities laws. First, they must prove that a defendant knew that the source of inside information disclosed tips in exchange for a personal benefit. Second, the definition of “personal benefit” is tightened to something more akin to a quid pro quo exchange.

For years, insider trading cases have been slam dunks for federal prosecutors. The United States Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York had compiled a remarkable streak of more than eighty insider trading convictions over the past five years. But that record has evaporated thanks to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Newman, in which the Second Circuit concluded that the district court’s jury instructions were improper and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The Second Circuit relied upon a thirty year old Supreme Court opinion, Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), and highlighted the “doctrinal novelty” of many of the government’s recent successful insider trading prosecutions in failing to follow Dirks. Accordingly, the Court overturned insider trading convictions for Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson because the defendants did not know they were trading on confidential information received from insiders in violation of those insiders’ fiduciary duties. More broadly, however, the Court laid down two new standards in tipping liability cases, both likely to frustrate prosecutors for years to come.

Tougher Disclosure Requirements

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 generally prohibit trading on the basis of material nonpublic information, more conventionally known as insider trading. In addition, federal law also prohibits an individual (the “tipper”) from disclosing private information to an outside person (the “tippee”), if the tippee then trades on the basis of this private information. This disclosure—a breach of one’s fiduciary duty—is known as tipping liability. As with most crimes, tipping liability requires scienter, a mental state that demonstrates intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. In these cases, the government must show that the defendant acted willfully—i.e., with the realization that what he was doing was a wrongful act under the securities laws.

Until last week, willfulness had been fairly easy to show, and that was one of the principal reasons for the government’s string of successes. Prosecutors only had to prove that the defendants traded on confidential information that they knew had been disclosed through a breach of confidentiality. In Newman, however, the Second Circuit rejected this position outright. The Court held that a tippee can only be convicted if the government can prove that he knew that the insider disclosed confidential information in exchange for a personal benefit, and one that is “consequential” and potentially pecuniary.

This distinction may seem minor, but its impact is enormous. The government now must prove—beyond a reasonable doubt, no less—that a defendant affirmatively knew about a personal benefit to the source of the confidential information. From the prosecution’s perspective, this is a massively challenging prospect.

Tightened “Personal Benefit” Standards

The Second Circuit also clarified the definition of “personal benefit” in the tipping liability context. Previously, the Court had embraced a very broad definition of the term—so broad, in fact, that the government argued that a tip in exchange for “mere friendship” or “career advice” could expose a trader to tipping liability.

The Court retreated from this position and narrowed its standard. Now, to constitute a personal benefit, the prosecution must show an exchange “that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” —in other words, something akin to a quid pro quo relationship. This, too, complicates a prosecution’s case significantly.

Implications of the Ruling

What effect will this ruling have moving forward? Of course, one effect is obvious from the start: prosecutors are going to have a much more difficult time proving tipping liability. But as with many new appellate cases, it may take some time to see how this rule shakes out on the ground in the trial courts. Here are a few things to keep in mind over the next few months and years.

  • This ruling may cause some immediate fallout. For example, there are currently several similar cases in New York that are pending for trial or appeal, and these may now result in acquittals or vacated convictions. In fact, some defendants who previously took guilty pleas in cooperation with Newman and Chiasson’s case are considering withdrawing their pleas in light of this decision. Moving forward, look to see the SEC and potential defendants adjusting their behavior and strategies in light of this ruling. In fact, just this week, a New York Federal Judge expressed strong reservations about whether guilty pleas entered by four defendants in an insider trader case related to a $1.2 billion IBM Corp. acquisition in 2009 should remain in light of Newman.
  • This is also welcome news for tippees who did not interact directly with the source of the inside information. Although the source of the leak may still be prosecuted as usual, this ruling may shield a more remote party from an indictment. As the Newman court noted, the government’s recent insider trading wins have been “increasingly targeted at remote tippees many levels removed from corporate insiders.” Now, without clear evidence that the insider received a quantifiable benefit and that the tippee was aware of such benefit for providing the information, cases against such “remote tippees” will be tremendously more difficult to prove.
  • But, caution should still reign where tippees deal more directly with tippers. The tippees in this case were as many as three or four steps removed from the tippers. It is not difficult to imagine the Court coming out the other way if Newman and Chiasson had been dealing with the tippers themselves.
  • One enormous question mark is to what extent the standards expressed in this case will affect the SEC’s civil enforcement suits. We will have to wait and see, but traders should still use caution. Because civil suits require a substantially lower burden of proof and lesser standard of intent compared to criminal cases, it is possible that these new rules may offer little protection from a civil suit. Additionally, SEC attorneys will probably emphasize this distinction to courts in an attempt to distinguish their enforcement suits from Newman and Chiasson’s criminal case, but whether this tactic is effective remains to be seen.
  • Although the Court refined the meaning of a personal benefit, the definition is still purposefully flexible. This case tells us that abstract psychic benefits—friendship, business advice, church relationships—are not enough, but what about anything just short of exchanging money, favors, or goods? We don’t yet know, and for that reason clients should exercise care.
If you have any questions about the content of this alert,   please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work, or the   authors below.
Jay B. Gould (bio)San Francisco

+1.415.983.1226

jay.gould@pillsburylaw.com

 William M. Sullivan (bio)Washington, DC

+1.202.663.8027

wsullivan@pillsburylaw.com

 

The authors wish to thank Robert Boyd for his valuable assistance with this client alert.

 

About Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Pillsbury is a full-service law firm with an industry focus on energy & natural resources, financial services including financial institutions, real estate & construction, and technology. Based in the world’s major financial, technology and energy centers, Pillsbury counsels clients on global business, regulatory and litigation matters. We work in multidisciplinary teams that allow us to understand our clients’ objectives, anticipate trends, and bring a 360-degree perspective to complex business and legal issues—helping clients to take greater advantage of new opportunities, meet and exceed their objectives, and better mitigate risk. This collaborative work style helps produce the results our clients seek.