Articles Tagged with Compliance

Published on:

By

Last week the SEC issued a Risk Alert and an Investor Bulletin on the Custody Rule after its National Examination Program (“NEP”) observed significant deficiencies in recent examinations involving custody and safety of client assets by registered investment advisers.  The stated purpose of the Risk Alert was to assist advisers with complying with the custody rule.  The Investor Bulletin was issued to explain the purpose and limitations of the custody rule to investors.  We encourage advisers and investors to review the Risk Alert and the Investor Bulletin, and remind advisers, particularly advisers to private equity funds,  fund of funds and funds that invest in illiquid assets that they may only self custody securities if they satisfy the requirements for “privately offered securities” (i.e., securities are (i) not acquired in any transaction involving a public offering, (ii) uncertificated, (iii) transferable only with the prior consent of the issuer and (iv) are held by a fund that is audited). Many advisers may not be in compliance with the custody rule because they self custody assets that do not satisfy the definition of privately offered securities.  Please feel free to contact us for more information on the Risk Alert, Investor Bulletin or the custody rule.

Published on:

By

Written by:  G. Derek Andreson, James L. Kelly, Christopher M. Zochowski, and Ryan R. Sparacino

This article was also published in Law360.

Until a few years ago, private equity firms enjoyed relative insulation from regulatory scrutiny of overseas acquisitions and the operations of multi-national portfolio companies. No longer is that the case. Spurred by the unfounded belief that PE firms are not invested in compliance or the conduct of their portfolio companies, the DOJ and SEC are now training their attention on how PE firms exert oversight and control over their portfolios, with a particular emphasis on FCPA issues. PE firms should prepare for this new scrutiny by taking proactive measures to demonstrate both their awareness and their commitment to earning profits on a level playing field. Most importantly, PE firms must recognize that these efforts are not about appeasing regulators, but go directly to maximizing return on investment. 

It’s About Deal Risk, Not Legal Risk 

A private equity firm’s foreign investments carry unique risks in the anti-corruption world: the firm may have exposure to substantial fines, penalties and reputational harm through the conduct of a portfolio company, even though the firm maintains only partial control.

This risk arises not only in the context of acquisitions, but also in strategic combinations such as joint ventures. And under successor liability principles, the conduct at issue may have occurred years before the firm considered taking a stake in the company or venture.

These risks permeate the deal cycle, including the exit phase. A sophisticated buyer in today’s market will take a hard look at a target’s anti-corruption compliance. If the compliance program falls short of industry standards, that fact may persuade the buyer to look for other opportunities, or it may convey additional leverage in negotiations.

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

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:

State registered advisers pay IARD fee November-December (of 2012)
Form 13F (for 12/31/12 quarter-end) February 14, 2013
Form 13H annual filing February 14, 2013
Schedule 13G annual amendment February 14, 2013
Registered CTA Form PR (for December 31, 2012 year-end) February 14, 2013
TIC Form SLT Every 23rd calendar day of the month following the report as-of date
TIC Form SHCA March 1, 2013
Affirm CPO exemption March 1, 2013
Registered Large CPO Form CPO-PQR December 31 quarter-end report March 1, 2013
Registered Small CPO Form CPO-PQR year-end report March 31, 2013
Registered Mid-size CPO Form CPO-PQR year-end report March 31, 2013
Registered CPOs filing Form PF in lieu of Form CPO-PQR December 31 quarter-end report March 31, 2013
SEC registered advisers and ERAs pay IARD fee Before submission of Form ADV annual amendment by March 31, 2013
Annual ADV update March 31, 2013
Delivery of Brochure April 30, 2013
Form PF Filers pay IARD fee Before submission of Form PF
Form PF (for advisers required to file within 120 days after December 31, 2012 fiscal year-end) April 30, 2013
FBAR Form TD F 90-22.1 (for persons meeting the filing threshold in 2012) June 30, 2013
Form D annual amendment One year anniversary from last amendment filing

 

CONTINUE READING…

Published on:

By

Pillsbury will be hosting back-to-back programs this month on compliance and regulatory challenges facing Chief Compliance Officers.  The first program will be held on February 27, 2013 at Pillsbury’s San Francisco office.  The second program will be held on February 28, 2013 at Pillsbury’s Los Angeles office.  Each program will begin with a brief overview of the recent trend involving the SEC’s referral of enforcement matters against fund managers to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, which will be followed by a panel discussion on the following topics:

  • Common compliance deficiencies and other “hot button” issues for SEC examiners
  • The use of technology and service providers to simplify Chief Compliance Officers’ obligations and minimize liability
  • Best practices in implementing a Code of Ethics (COE), including what should be in the COE and how employee activity should be monitored
  • The implications of the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) on compliance procedures and policies

We hope you can join us.

To register for the San Francisco office event, please click HERE.

To register for the Los Angeles office event, please click HERE.

Published on:

By

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.

Published on:

By

Written by:  Jay Gould and Peter Chess

In a July 10, 2012, no-action letter[1], available here, issued by a Division of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) in response to requested relief from certain new CFTC registration obligations, the CFTC granted temporary relief to commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”).  As previously discussed on this blog, earlier this year the CFTC rescinded an exemption under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(4) used by many CPOs and CTAs.  This rescission went into effect on April 24, 2012 and denied the use of the exemption under Rule 4.13(a)(4) to any CPOs and CTAs of new pools on or after that date, although CPOs and CTAs already availing themselves of the exemption were able to continue its use until the end of the year.

The no-action letter offers relief to CPOs and CTAs of new pools, recommending that the CFTC not take enforcement action against CPOs or CTAs for new pool launched after the issuance of the no-action letter for failure to register as such until December 31, 2012, as outlined below.

No-action relief will be granted for each pool for which the CPO submits a claim to take advantage of the no-action relief and remains in compliance with the following:

  • Interests in the pool are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and such interests are offered and sold without marketing to the public;
  • The CPO reasonably believes, at the time of investment, that (i) each natural person participant is a “qualified eligible person” as that term is defined in Section 4.7(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act; and (ii) each non-natural person participant is a “qualified eligible person” as that term is defined in Section 4.7 of the Commodity Exchange Act or an “accredited investor” as defined under the Securities Act; and
  • In addition, no-action relief will be granted where each pool for which the CPO claims relief is a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.

No-action relief will be granted when the CTA submits a claim to take advantage of the relief and remains in compliance with the following:

  • The CTA’s commodity interest trading advice is directed solely to, and for the sole use of, the pools that it operates; or
  • The CTA’s commodity interest trading advice is directed solely to, and for the sole use of, pools operated by CPOs who claim relief from CPO registration under Rules 4.13(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) or 4.5 of the Commodity Exchange Act, or under no-action relief provided by the no-action letter.

CPOs and CTAs should note that the no-action relief granted is not self-executing and must be affirmatively sought, and any relief sought and/or granted will expire at the end of the year and such CPOs and CTAs must remain in compliance with registration obligations going forward.

[1]   The No-Action letter was issued by the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the Managed Funds Association, the Investment Adviser Association, the Alternative Investment Management Association, Ltd., and the Investment Company Institute, collectively.

Published on:

By

The Form PF (PF is short for “private funds”) is a new Securities and Exchange Commission reporting form for investment advisers to private funds that have at least $150 million in private fund assets under management.  Comprising 42 pages and divided into 4 sections with corresponding subsections, Form PF may appear daunting at first.  The task of completing and filing the Form also entails categorizations, specific and nuanced reporting requirements and Form-specific calculations, not to mention the fact that improperly completed Forms may be delayed or even rejected.  However, with the proper tools and plan of attack, an adviser will be able to fulfill its reporting requirements and improve its data platform for a host of other reporting and filing requirements.  Form PF necessitates working with large amounts of data.  So, early planning, coordination and organization are essential for success.  In a guest article, Jay Gould, a Partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and leader of Pillsbury’s Investment Funds & Investment Management practice team, and Kelli Brown, Director of Private Funds at Data Agent, LLC, describe ten steps that a hedge fund manager should take for successful Form PF completion and filing.  The article can be accessed on the Hedge Fund Law Report’s website (www.hflawreport.com – subscription required). 

Please contact Jay Gould if you have any further questions or seek further information about Form PF.

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay B. Gould and Peter Chess

On April 5, 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act” or the “Act”) was signed into law, creating a new regulatory on-ramp for emerging growth companies going public.  The JOBS Act also includes provisions that require the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to undertake various initiatives, including rulemaking and studies touching on capital formation, disclosure and registration requirements.  Title II of the Act affects offerings by issuers pursuant to Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), as well as resales under Rule 144A of the Securities Act.  In particular, the Act directs the SEC to amend its rules to:

  • Repeal the ban on general solicitation and general advertising for offerings under Rule 506 of Regulation D when sales are only to accredited investors;
  • Revise Rule 144A to provide that securities sold under Rule 144A may be offered to persons other than qualified institutional buyers (“QIBs”), including by use of general solicitation or general advertising, provided that securities are only sold to persons reasonably believed to be QIBs; and
  • Amend Section 4 of the Securities Act such that offers and sales exempt under Rule 506 shall not be deemed public offerings under the federal securities laws as a result of general advertising or general solicitation.

For Private Funds, Regulation D as we know it is still in effect for the next 90 days as the JOBS Act directs the SEC to make the relevant rule changes to Rule 506 and Rule 144A within 90 days, but it does not modify the current text of those rules.  In addition, Funds should continue to follow applicable terms of SEC interpretative guidance.  Senior members of the SEC staff participated in discussion of the JOBS Act yesterday that provided further guidance on this subject, and the SEC is still currently seeking public comments on SEC regulatory initiatives under the JOBS Act.

Pillsbury and KPMG, along with the California Hedge Fund Association, will be sponsoring a program on the JOBS Act and the new world of “general solicitation” for Funds in June.

Published on:

By

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.