Year: 2010

Export Control Limitations

I don’t spend much time dealing with export regulations. It’s kind of hard to ship a commercial office building oversees. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which regulate the export and reexport of most commercial items. Other agencies regulate more specialized exports.

If you are shipping stuff oversees, you need to determine if you need a license. There four questions you need to ask:

  • What are you exporting?
  • Where are you exporting?
  • Who will receive your item?
  • What will your item be used for?

I’m focused on the “who will receive your item list, because there are long lists of individuals and organizations are prohibited from receiving U.S. exports. These are the general lists:

BIS Entity List – EAR Part 744, Supplement 4 – A list of organizations identified by BIS as engaging in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/pdf/744spir.pdf

Treasury Department Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List – EAR Part 764, Supplement 3 – A list maintained by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control comprising individuals and organizations deemed to represent restricted countries or known to be involved in terrorism and narcotics trafficking. http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/t11sdn.pdf

The Unverified List is composed of firms for which BIS was unable to complete an end-use check. Firms on the unverified list present a “red flag” that exporters have a duty to inquire about before making an export to them. http://www.bis.doc.gov/enforcement/unverifiedlist/unverified_parties.html

Denied Persons – You may not participate in an export or reexport transaction subject to the EAR with a person whose export privileges have been denied by the BIS. http://www.bis.doc.gov/dpl/thedeniallist.asp

If you’re dealing with defense articles and defense services, you will need to look at the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense and Trade Controls.  They have limitations imposed by country: County Policies and Embargoes.

If you’re dealing with nuclear material, then you need to avoid the embargoed countries listed in 10 CFR 110.28 and the restricted destinations in 10 CFR 110.29.

There are a bunch of other programs, but they seem mostly focused on specialized materials and are do not have specific lists of blocked parties.

Sources:

Private Equity Tax and Compliance Practices 2010

Privte Equity tax & complaince practices 2010

Today I am attending the Private Equity Tax and Compliance Practices 2010 conference. This afternoon, I’m joining Karen Hansen of Flag Capital Management on the CCO Roundtable.

Many private equity companies have escaped from having to register with the SEC and avoid the regulatory load of registration and compliance. The current draft of the financial reform bill has removed the exemption from registration that many private equity firms have enjoyed.

An earlier session by Jerome Boynton of Promus Capital will tackle investment adviser registration. Nick Prokos of ACA Consulting will discuss building a compliance office.

Karen and I will have a Q&A on how to tackle the regulatory puzzle.

Private Investment Funds and Reporting Requirements Under the Ethics Code Rule

As I wrote about yesterday on the code of ethics for an investment adviser, one of the requirements of registering with SEC as an investment adviser is implementing a code of ethics. The most involved part of the code is the extensive reporting requirement on securities activities to the chief compliance officer.

Rule 204A-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 takes the approach that extensive reporting of trading activities by employees of an investment adviser will been a strong deterrent from getting involved in insider trading.The rule breaks the reporting into two baskets: holdings report and transaction report.

Holding Report Under Rule 204A-1

Annually, each access person needs to submit a report of their securities holdings. The report needs to include the following:

  • title of the security;
  • type of security
  • as applicable, the exchange ticker symbol or CUSIP number
  • number of shares
  • principal amount of each reportable security
  • The name of any broker, dealer or bank
  • The date of the report

The rule does not require this to be a calendar year.

Transactions Report Under Rule 204A-1

Quarterly, each access person needs to submit a report of their securities trading activity. The report needs to include the following:

  • date of the transaction
  • title of the security
  • as applicable the exchange ticker symbol or CUSIP number
  • interest rate and maturity date for bonds and debt instruments
  • number of shares
  • principal amount
  • nature of the transaction (i.e., purchase, sale or any other type of acquisition or disposition)
  • price of the security
  • name of the broker, dealer or bank who effected the trade
  • submission date of the report

The report is due within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter.

Access Person Under Rule 204A-1

The reporting obligations are limited to “access persons” at the investment adviser. These are every employee that

  1. has access to nonpublic information regarding any clients’ purchase or sale of securities
  2. has access to nonpublic information regarding the portfolio holdings of any reportable fund
  3. is involved in making securities recommendations to clients
  4. has access to securities recommendations that are nonpublic

Those are some very broad categories. For most private funds, I would guess that most of their employees could be considered “access persons.” It’s probably easier and less likely to get you in trouble if you consider all employees to be access persons and require all employees to submit reports. Not easier on the compliance officers, but easier on employee understanding.

Exceptions From Reporting Requirements

Rule 204A-1 has some exceptions to personal securities reporting. No reports are required:

  • With respect to transactions effected pursuant to an automatic investment plan.
  • With respect to securities held in accounts over which the access person had no direct or indirect influence or control.

Plus there is also a group securities that are not reportable:

  • Direct obligations of the Government of the United States;
  • Bankers’ acceptances, bank certificates of deposit, commercial paper and high quality short-term debt instruments, including repurchase agreements;
  • Shares issued by money market funds;
  • Shares issued by open-end funds other than reportable funds; and
  • Shares issued by unit investment trusts that are invested exclusively in one or more open-end funds, none of which are reportable funds

Preclearance for IPOs and Limited Offerings

Rule 204a-1 requires an access person to obtain approval before they any security in an initial public offering or in a limited offering. A “limited offering” is a private placement and would include the purchase of an interest in a private investment fund.

What About Alternative Investment Fund Advisers?

These rules make sense for an adviser focusing on tradable securities, but make much less sense for advisers to funds that focus on alternative investments. Venture capital is an obvious example, but it seems they have escaped from the registration requirement imposed on other private equity firms under the financial reform bills.

Sources:

Image of 100 dollar bill is by mokra from RGBstock.com

Code of Ethics for an Investment Adviser

With the upcoming requirement that advisers to many private investment funds must register with the SEC, I figured it was time to look at some of the requirements that registration will impose.

Section 204A of the Investment Advisers Act requires registered investment advisers to

“establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of such investment adviser’s business, to prevent the misuse … of material, nonpublic information by such investment adviser or any person associated with such investment adviser.”

It also requires the SEC to adopt “adopt rules or regulations to require specific policies or procedures reasonably designed to prevent misuse.” That leads to the issuance of  Rule 204A-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

Rule 204A-1 has three key elements: Adoption, Reporting, IPOs.

The adoption element lays out what needs to be in the advisers code of ethics:

  1. A standard of business conduct that you require which reflect the fiduciary obligations;
  2. Provisions requiring your supervised persons to comply with applicable federal securities laws;
  3. Provisions that require all of your access persons to report, and you to review, their personal securities transactions and holdings periodically;
  4. Provisions requiring supervised persons to report any violations of your code of ethics promptly; and
  5. Provisions requiring you to provide each of your supervised persons with a copy of your code of ethics and any amendments, and requiring your supervised persons to provide you with a written acknowledgment of their receipt of the code and any amendments.

Number five requires the standard delivery of the code and signature that they received the code. The prompt reporting is also standard for a code of conduct, as is the compliance with laws.

The fiduciary obligations may be a surprise for the advisers to private investment funds. Fund managers typically structure the funds as limited partnerships. The enabling statute impose a fiduciary duty on the general partner of a limited partnership, which for a private fund will be the investment adviser affiliate. Delaware limited partnership law allows a general partner to reduce its fiduciary obligations, but still must retain the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (see 17 Del Code §17-1101)

On the other hand, Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act imposes fiduciary duties on investment advisers, regardless of whether or not they are registered with the SEC. This is a different body of law defining the obligations of an investment adviser as opposed to the general partner of a limited partnership.

The fiduciary obligation in 206 make its a violation to

  • employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client;
  • engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client;
  • engage in any act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative;

Those are your conventional anti-fraud provisions. There is one more violation and it gets the most attention:

“Acting as principal for his own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or acting as broker for a person other than such client, knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the account of such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the completion of such transaction the capacity in which he is acting and obtaining the consent of the client to such transaction.”

The key here is that is a violation to if you don’t disclose the conflict prior to completion of the transaction.

Fora private fund, you will need to take a look at Rule 206(4)-8 because it lays out some additional fraud prohibitions for investment advisers to private investment funds.

If you run a private fund and don’t have written code of  ethics, it’s time to start thinking about putting one in place. Here are some examples of investment adviser code of ethics:

If you don’t have a code of conduct and are looking for a starting point. Those three are worth taking a look at. There are plenty of others out there and findable with an internet search.

Also keep in mind that you will have to revisit your code next year. Rule 206(4)-7 requires an annual review of your code of ethics.

Sources:

  • Section 204A of the Investment Adviser Act
  • Rule 204A-1 – Investment Adviser Code of Ethics
  • Investment Adviser Code of Ethics Rule by Shearman and Sterling
  • Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act
  • Rule 206(4)-7
  • Rule 206(4)-8

It Will be up to the SEC to Define Venture Capital

With the financial reform bill set to eliminate the 15 client rule exemption for registration under the Investment Advisers Act, the only remaining exemption for fund companies with over $150 million in assets under management will be for venture capital. The Congressional conference decided to not include the Senate’s exemption for private equity.

The bill would leave it up to the Securities and Exchange Commission to define “venture capital.” So what do you think that definition will be?

Wikipedia provides a nice overview, but lacks much in the way of a definition for regulators.

Venture capital is provided as seed funding to early-stage, high-potential, growth companies and more often after the seed funding round as growth funding round in the interest of generating a return through an eventual realization event such as an IPO or trade sale of the company. Venture capital investments are generally made in cash in exchange for shares in the invested company.

Next I turned to a trade group’s definition of venture capital. So I went to the website for the National Venture Capital Association. I had a hard time finding a comprehensive definition. Although I’m sure that they are working on some proposals for the SEC. Here are some tidbits:

Venture capitalists invest mostly in young, private companies that have great potential for innovation and growth.

Venture capitalists are long-term investors who take a very active role in their portfolio companies. When a venture capitalist makes an investment he/she does not expect a return on that investment for 7-10 years, on average.

Venture capital is a subset of the larger private equity asset class. The private equity asset class includes venture capital, buyouts, and mezzanine investment activity. Venture capital focuses on investing in private, young, fast growing companies. Buyout and mezzanine investing focuses on investing in more mature companies. Venture capitalists also invest cash for equity. Other private equity investors tend to use debt as part of their transactions.

Venture capital is more like a different business model for investing than a legally definable industry. Since the SEC is going to come up with a definition, that means that there will be a legal definition.

That also means that the SEC definition will most likely affect the types of investments by venture capital firms, the nature of their capital investment, and the exit strategy from their investments.

Here are some guesses:

  • Prohibition or limitation on holding debt
  • Limitation on holding preferred shares
  • Restricted to holding common shares in operating companies
  • Prohibitions or limitations on holding publicly-traded securities
  • Limitations on holding shares in companies that have debt obligations
  • Restrictions on the type of operating companies they can invest in

They are just guesses. But the industry should be very worried about the eventual definition. The SEC has expressed a desire to regulate all private investment funds so I would expect their eventual definition to be very narrow.

I’m sure that the venture capital industry views the exemption as a victory. But the exemption could end up being a heavy weight around their necks. They may need to change their operating approach and investing style to stay within the boundaries of the definition and the exemption.

In the end, it may just be easier to register and regain the flexibility for a wider variety of investment approaches.

Sources:

You can get the “Trust Me, I’m a Venture Capitalist” hat at Cafe Press.

Compliance Bits and Pieces for June 18

Here are some recent stories that I found interesting:

Who Does Your Chief Compliance Officer Report To? by Thomas Fox in a guest post on The FCPA Blog

Should a CCO report to a company’s Board of Directors, or an appropriate Board committee such as an Audit Committee or Compliance Committee? Or can a CCO report to a company’s General Counsel (GC) but have access to the Board of Directors for periodic, but no less than annual, reporting? Is there any specific guidance from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or any of its U.S. government interpretations such as the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines? Is one approach more preferable than the other?

The Ethics of Perception vs. Reality by Kathleen Edmond, Best Buy’s Chief Ethics Officer

Is it OK for our employees to engage company vendors in private contracts unrelated to their work on behalf of Best Buy? Why or why not?

Why Congressional Insider Trading is so Profitable in ProfessorBainbridge.com

In my paper, The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, I explained that a 2004 study of the results of stock trading by United States Senators during the 1990s found that that senators on average beat the market by 12% a year. In sharp contrast, U.S. households on average underperformed the market by 1.4% a year and even corporate insiders on average beat the market by only about 6% a year during that period. A reasonable inference is that some Senators had access to – and were using – material nonpublic information about the companies in whose stock they trade.

Congressman attacks student videographer on public street by Carlos Miller in Photography is Not a Crime

Bob Etheridge, a Democratic Congressman from North Carolina was walking down the street in Washington DC when he was asked a simple question by a student videographer “Do you fully support the Obama agenda?” The Congressman got irate and began demanding “who are you? who are you?” He then took a swing at the student before grabbing his wrist.

BP: Still not as evil as Goldman Sachs by Felix Salmon

Supreme Court Rules on the Privacy of Text Messages

Sort of.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Ontario v. Quon regarding a police chief reviewing the content of a police officer’s text messages with consent or a warrant. Many commenters hoped that the Court would issue a broad statement on an employee’s privacy rights in this age of cloud computing and web 2.0.

The Court chose to rule on very narrow grounds and not address the electronic privacy issue:

“A broad holding concerning employees’ privacy expectations vis-à-vis employer-provided technological equipment might have implications for future cases that cannot be predicted. It is preferable to dispose of this case on narrower grounds.”

The Justices were hesitant to jump into the battle about electronic privacy:

“The Court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer. The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear.

…

Prudence counsels caution before the facts in the instant case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices. Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior.”

Instead, the Justices looked narrowly as the special situation of the government as an employer.  Since its the government, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches comes into play. (This is not applicable for a private employer.)  The standard  is that

“when conducted for a “non-investigatory, work-related purpos[e]”or for the “investigatio[n] of work-related misconduct,” a government employer’s warrantless search is reasonable if it is “‘justified at its inception’” and if “‘the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of thesearch and not excessively intrusive in light of’” the circumstances giving rise to the search.”

Even if a government employee could assume some level of privacy in their messages, it would not have been reasonable for them to conclude that his messages were in all circumstances immune from scrutiny by the government employer.

Sources:

Regulation of Advisers to Private Funds

One of the differences between the Senate and House financial reform bills is how they treat advisers to private equity funds. The Senate bill has an exemption for private equity and venture capital. The House bill only has an exemption for venture capital. Since I work for a private equity firm, I am very focused on how this gets resolved.

In reconciling the two bills at the conference, they removed the Senate exemption for private equity: Title IV as passed by the Senate conferees. They also agreed to the house provision creating an exemption from SEC registration for private fund advisers with less than $150 million dollars in assets under management. Those advisers will need to register and comply with state registration instead.

That means private equity fund advisers with more than $150 million in assets under management will need to register with the SEC as investment advisers and will be subject to the rules governing investment advisers.

The bill has not been passed yet, but it seems unlikely that they will be going back to further revise this section of the bill. There are much more contentious provisions that legislators still need to deal with.

Compliance and Humor

At the Compliance Week 2010 Conference I was surprised to discover that the improv comedy group, Second City, had dived into the world of compliance and ethics awareness. They debuted three of their awareness videos during the conference keynotes. They are now available on their Real Biz Shorts website:

The big question is whether humor is appropriate for ethics and compliance?

Second City has a response in their FAQ:

“Well we believe that this programming is too important to be delivered in a way that doesn’t connect with employees. And humor is a great tool to address tough subjects and break the ice, allowing people to dialogue about the issues they face. In the comedy business there is a saying, “things are only funny when they’re true.” Humor for humor’s sake doesn’t work in ethics and compliance, but humor as a way to get to truth is invaluable.”

Tom Yorton, the CEO of Second City Communications, stated four things that comedy pros can teach compliance professionals in an article in the May issue of Compliance Week: Winning Your Audience.

  • Humor Gets to the Truth
  • Dialogues Beat Monologues
  • Foster Open Communication
  • Say It, and Say It Again

Check out the videos if you’re feeling down at your compliance job and need a chuckle. If this sounds interesting, they also offer a free demo with four other high-quality videos.

Now if I could just be funnier…..