Year: 2011

SEC Made It Harder to Earn Performance Fees

As a general rule, investment adviser cannot charge performance fees. Section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 generally prohibits an investment adviser from entering into, extending, renewing, or performing any investment advisory contract that provides for compensation to the adviser based on a share of capital gains on, or capital appreciation of, the funds of a client. That means no performance fees.

Unless the SEC makes an exception, which it has done so for people that don’t need the protections of that prohibition. Historically, that has meant the person has a “big pile of cash”. The big pile of cash standard had been if the client has at least $750,000 under the management of an investment adviser or the adviser reasonably believes the client has a net worth of more than $1,500,000.

Back in May the SEC has proposed raising those limits to $1 million under management or a minimum net worth of $2 million. The SEC was required to adjust the standard under Section 418 of Dodd-Frank. The adjustment was keyed to inflation. The SEC decided to exclude the value of person’s home, just as they did with the accredited investor standard, in calculating net worth.

As for private  funds, Rule 205-3(b) requires a look -through from the fund to the investors in the fund if it is relying on the 3(c)(1) exemption under the Investment Company Act. Each “equity owner … will be considered a client for purposes of the” limitation.  If the fund is relying on the 3(c)(7) exemption from the Investment Company Act then the fund’s investors should be “qualified purchasers”  and you won’t need to look much further. If the fund is using the 3(c)(1) exemption, then it will need to take a closer look at its investors to make sure that each is a qualified client.

The new standard will go into effect on September 19, 2011.

Sources:

Image: http://www.rgbstock.com/image/misbgGc/Money+series+2
licensed for reuse

How Close Should You Come to Crossing the Line?

It’s clearly wrong to break the law. How close should you come to the limit of what is legal and what is illegal? Let’s hear from a federal prosecutor:

[I]f you are single-mindedly focused on walking the line, you are bound to end up afoul of regulators, and God forbid, criminal prosecutors. Even more dangerous perhaps, you are sending a message to every other person at the firm that line-walking is a good idea. That can work for a while, but people will invariably miscalculate and bad things will invariably follow.

– Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Second Circuit

Sources:

Image is Linda Crossing the Line by Ville Miettinen

Another FCPA Opinion Procedure Release on Corporate Hospitality

The Department of Justice released the latest Opinion Procedure Release on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The releases are great tool to help you figure out if a proposed corporate action could lead to an enforcement action. Anyone with an interest in the FCPA looks to the existing body of opinion releases as a way to help understand the DOJ’s interpretation of the law and what corporate actions are acceptable, which are risky and which are forbidden.

This opinion request came from an adoption agency. So maybe there is an interesting twist to their corporate behavior that could offer an interesting new perspective on the FCPA.

Unfortunately FCPA Opinion Procedure Release 11-01 (.pdf) covers no new ground. In fact the fact pattern is nearly identical to those presented in the FCPA Opinion Procedure Release 2007-01 and 2007-02.

At best the release once again lays out best practices for corporate hospitality:

  • Let the government agency pick who will come.
  • No spouses or family members on the trip
  • Pay costs directly to providers
  • No cash to the government officials
  • Souvenirs should be of nominal value and/or have the corporate logo
  • Don’t fund side trips or leisure activities
  • Focus the function on educating the visiting officials about the operations and services of your company

These best practices were in the old opinion releases. Howard Sklar scratched his head over why the requestor went through the trouble and expense of getting this opinion release.  I share the same thoughts. The fact pattern was not a close call. Anyone who could spell FCPA should have been able to find the releases. The DOJ has all of the FCPA Opinion Procedure Releases published on their FCPA website.

Maybe it was the nature of the requestor: and international adoption agency. I would guess that the government officials are from either Russia or China, two countries with an international reputation for bribery and corruption.

From what I’ve heard from some friends, there are often numerous shakedowns and cash requests made on the adoptive parents during the international adoption process.  Obviously, the parents are in an emotionally fragile state when heading overseas to adopt. They are likely in a country that is unfamiliar to them, lost in a fog of foreign languages. Could some of those “gifts” be bribes and could some of the recipients be foreign officials? Sure.

There have been big headlines about FCPA enforcement actions in the US and the coming rise of enforcement under the UK Bribery Act. The adoption agency should be concerned that its activities could be in violation of these laws.

International adoption agencies also have a larger moral question to consider. To the extent they are making payment or encouraging the adoptive parents to make payments, their activities start to look more like baby buying. If the activity is more wholesale, you end up looking like a baby farmer. I think more people are concerned with that moral question, than the legal question of bribery.

Sources:

Compliance Bits and Pieces for July 8

These are some recent compliance-related stories that caught my eye.

Lessons of the Financial Crisis: The Dangers of Short-Termism by Sheila C. Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation

[I]n my opinion, the overarching lesson of the crisis is the pervasive short-term thinking that helped to bring it about. Short-termism is a serious and growing problem in both business and government. I would like to devote my remarks to explaining what I mean by this, and discussing how I think it plays into the policy challenges arising from the crisis.

SEC works to get rid of “The Lease to Nowhere” by Sonya Hubbard in Footnoted

The temperature may have officially reached the high 80s yesterday afternoon in Washington, D.C., but we bet it was significantly hotter in room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building. That’s where the SEC’s Chairman, Mary Schapiro, and its Inspector General, H. David Kotz, were in the hot seat to answer questions for the Congressional Sub-Committee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management (which falls under the auspices of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) about the $556 million, 10-year lease that the SEC signed last summer for 900,000 square feet of space in D.C.’s Constitution Center.

How Is Law School Like the NFL Draft? Jonathan Tjarks in Policymic

Admittance into a top-14 law school, like a scholarship from a top-10 college football program, is the culmination of a lifetime of striving. Of the over 100,000 high school seniors who play football, fewer than 3,000 sign Division I letters of intent. Similarly, the top 25% in Harvard Law’s 2009 class had an average GPA of 3.95 and a LSAT score of 175, which puts them in the 99th percentile of the over 100,000 test takers each year.

Can a Libyan Rebel Be a Foreign Governmental Official under the FCPA? by Tom Fox in FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

So I began to wonder, can a person be a Foreign Governmental Official when the persons they are assisting, the Libyan rebels, are not recognized as the national government of a country. Even if a government is under economic sanctions by almost every country in the world that does not necessarily mean that it is not the government of that country.

Yes, the SEC Wants Real Estate Fund Managers to Register

After six months baking in the oven, the new Form ADV is ready. (To be more precise, the new Part 1 is ready. Part 2 has been sitting on the table for almost a year.) Form ADV still calls for real estate fund managers to register as investment advisers

Earlier I had pointed out how a real estate fund manager could be considered an investment adviser and have to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act. In the Proposed Changes to Form ADV the SEC included “real estate fund”. They also changed the way you calculate assets under management, taking in the value of the fund assets, not just securities held by the fund.

While waiting for Form ADV to finish baking, I wondered if there might be some clarification or changes to pull real estate funds out of the registration requirement. It didn’t happen.

As you can see from the image above, “real estate fund” is still one of the choices when it comes to designating the type of fund. That gives it equal status with hedge fund, venture capital fund, and private equity fund. The definition of real estate fund is unchanged in the instructions for Part 1A of Form ADV:

“Real estate fund” means any private fund that is not a hedge fund, that does not provide investors with redemption rights in the ordinary course, and that invests primarily in real estate and real estate related assets.

Maybe there is room under the definition of “private fund”? In the Glossary it’s defined as “An issuer that would be an investment company as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act.” That does leave open the position that the fund could be exempt under section 3(c)(5). That’s a murkier exemption than the one provided by 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7).

The other confusion over how to value the assets under management is gone. The old version of Form ADV had a 50% test for assets under management. If less than 50% of the value was not securities, then you didn’t have a securities portfolio and the value was zero.

The new way of calculating assets under management for a private fund from the Instructions for Part 1A:

For purposes of this definition, treat all of the assets of a private fund as a securities portfolio, regardless of the nature of such assets. For accounts of private funds, moreover, include in the securities portfolio any uncalled commitment pursuant to which a person is obligated to acquire an interest in, or make a capital contribution to, the private fund.

It still gets back to being a “private fund” and relying on a 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7), instead of a 3(c)(5) definition. One thing to realize is that the definition of “private fund” actually comes from Section 402 of Dodd-Frank, not from the wishes of the SEC. The intent of the SEC is clear, even if there may be some wiggle room.

Sources:

Real Estate Fund Managers and the CFTC

Many real estate fund managers, used to the lack of regulatory oversight, are wrestling with the implications of Dodd-Frank. One of the biggest sources of hand-wringing is whether to register as an investment adviser given the removal of the 15 clients exemption from the Investment Advisers Act. Another agency is potentially making regulatory changes leading to a registration requirement.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed removing some exemptions from the requirement to register as Commodity Pool Operator or a Commodity Trading Advisor. I have never paid much attention to these requirement. That is because interest rate swaps and foreign exchange hedges generally fell outside the definition of a commodity.

However, Section 712(d)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act empowers the CFTC and SEC to define swaps and could re-classifies “swaps” as “commodities”. That brings these formerly unregulated contracts under the regulatory regimes of the CFTC and the SEC. Under the comprehensive framework for regulating swaps and security-based swaps established in Title VII of Dodd-Frank, the CFTC is given regulatory authority over swaps and the SEC is given regulatory authority over security-based swaps. They can fight over mixed swaps.

The concern I have is that a real estate fund is likely to have “swaps” in place to reduce interest rate risk. If they are operating overseas, they may have hedges in place to reduce foreign exchange risk. Since those are likely to fall under the new definition of swap, and there is no end-user exemption, the real estate fund and its manager could now also fall under the regulatory regime of  the CFTC.

CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) currently exempts a fund from registration as a Commodity Pool Operator if:

  • the fund’s interests are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act);
  • the investors in the fund are only Qualified Eligible Persons, accredited investors or knowledgeable employees;
  • the pool’s aggregate initial margin and premiums attributable to futures and options on futures do not exceed 5 percent of the liquidation value of the pool’s portfolio;
  • the fund is not marketed at a vehicle for trading in commodity futures or commodity options markets.

Rule 4.13(a)(4) currently exempts you from registration as a Commodity Pool Operator if the interests in the fund are exempt from registration under the ‘33 Act and the operator reasonably believes all participants are Qualified Eligible Persons or accredited investors.

The CFTC  is proposing to eliminate these exemptions because it is concerned that they are big loopholes from exemption. I think an unintended consequence could be dragging real estate funds and real estate operators into the regulatory framework.

I have to admit that I’ve just started reading the swap rules and the CFTC framework so I don’t understand how it all fits together. Frankly, the provision in Dodd-Frank and the proposed rules are a mess and full of inconsistencies, making this situation even harder to figure out and likely creating some unintended consequences.

Sources:

The First Days of the UK Bribery Act

It’s a been a few days since the UK’s Bribery Act became effective, making some questionable corporate behavior become clearly illegal. There have been thousands of news stories, legal alerts, and dire warnings about the line in the sand drawn on its date of effectiveness, July 1.

Now, there is a bit a waiting, a calm before the storm, until we hear the first government action. Companies with a UK presence have most likely taken a look at their operations and implemented the changes needed to comply with the new law. (Perhaps that is optimistic.) The SFO now has a loaded gun and is likely on the hunt for behavior that violates the new law.

It took decades before the FCPA became actively enforced. I don’t expect it will take as long to see the first action under the Bribery Act. The SFO has already seen how effective FCPA has been in the United States. (If you consider “effective” to be good headlines and relatively easy wins.)

When will the first action happen? Will it be a government investigation or self-reporting? What industry will be first?

Sources:

Fourth of July and Compliance

What better way to celebrate the independence of the United States than by taking the day off from work, grilling meat, and watching stuff blow up.

In colonial Boston, official proclamations were read from the Old State House balcony, looking down State Street towards Long Wharf.

Each July 4th, the Captain Commanding of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company reads the Declaration of Independence from the balcony of the Old State House. The reading of the Declaration of Independence dates back to July 18, 1776, when Colonel Thomas Crafts performed this duty for the first time.

Compliance Bits and Pieces for July 1

These are some compliance-related stories that caught my eye.

Okay, so this first one is not about compliance, but about the Tour de France that starts on Saturday morning for its three week race across France.

Top 10 Reasons Geeks Should Love the Tour de France in Wired’s GeekDad.

Fraud in Commercial Real Estate: Tips & Red Flags on Money Laundering & Terrorist Financings by Keith Mullen in Tough Times for Lenders

In the late 2006, FinCEN issued a study highlighting money laundering trends in the commercial real estate industry. In the information reviewed for this study, the most commonly reported suspected illicit financial activity associated with the commercial real estate sector is money laundering to promote tax evasion. … This should NOT be a surprise: Federal examiners have issued a 439 page manual on this topic. One good way to jump into the topic is to examine Appendix F to the manual, which contains a nice list of red flags for money laundering and terrorist financing. Here are some of the topics covered in the list –

How ‘Bad Boy’ Guarantees Can Make a Non-Recourse Loan Suddenly Become Recourse by Robert A. Silverman in National Real Estate Investor

Recent court decisions should serve as a warning to borrowers to carefully review the wording of recourse carve-out guarantees in both existing and proposed mortgages, lest they be held fully liable for real estate loans. While “non-recourse” loans typically require carve-out guarantees allowing the lender to pursue the guarantor’s assets in instances of “bad-boy” acts — such as waste, funds misapplication, environmental issues and voluntary bankruptcy filings — the precise wording of the guarantees is crucial.

The Bribery Act – Foreign public officials & why you should care who they are

Certain countries will contain many publicly owned businesses. For example, some corporations take the view that there is strong likelihood that local partners in China may constitute a public official. As a result they err on the side of caution and treat all local partners they deal with in that jurisdiction as state owned enterprises and the people they work for as foreign public officials.

5 Things to Know When Merging Compliance and Ethics Programs by John Martin, Bill Hughes and Edward Applegate in Corporate Compliance Insights

Corporate America has tried the stick and is now trying the carrot approach. Why is it so hard to integrate compliance with ethics? Here are five things to consider when attempting to integrate or combine compliance with ethics.

Creating a “Gap” Analysis and Sharing Issues with Management by Michael Portorti in FCPA Complaince and Ethics Blog

The Gap Analysis document can then be used to track status of deficiencies and used as a source to update Executive Management as necessary. It also can expose bottlenecks and identify potential revisions for controls that need additional tailoring to fit in with the Company’s operational environment. Accumulating deficiencies in this manner keeps all parties up-to-date on remediation progress so overall compliance efforts can move along at an acceptable rate.

Insider Trading: A Dirty Business

One of the major tactics of hedge funds is to “arbitrage reality”, operating with a better understanding of a company and its stock price than other participants in the market. In a legitimate operation, that means lots of research. On the wrong side it means getting inside information about a company’s earnings, upcoming deals, and other inside information.

The hedge fund most notably found to be operating on the wrong side was the Galleon Group run by Raj Rajaratnam. On May 11th he was found guilty on all fourteen counts of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. His sentencing is scheduled for July 29th. His appeals will go on for years.

George Packer puts together an insightful look at the Rajaratnam as a lens to explore the difficulties in getting a guilty verdict for insider trading and for prosecutions coming out of the financial crisis in a long article in The New Yorker: A Dirty Business.

I don’t think Rajaratnam’s guilty verdict was a surprise to anyone. Maybe it was a surprise to him and his lawyer. The feds had wiretaps and what appeared to me to be very solid evidence. One of the biggest difficulties is showing the flow of information to show that the trade happened based on material, non-public information. For a company insider or company adviser that is more straightforward than finding that information with a third-party trader. Without the flow of information you can’t show that the use of the information was in breach of a duty.

The death blow in the Rajaratnam trail was Rajat Gupta, a member of the Goldman Sachs’ board of directors. At a board meeting they discussed Warren Buffett’s proposed investment of five billion dollars in Goldman Sachs. The meeting ended at 3:54 P.M. Sixteen seconds later, Gupta called Rajaratnam’s office. At 3:58, just two minutes before the markets closed, Rajaratnam gave an order to buy three hundred and fifty thousand shares of Goldman stock. Fit him for a pinstripe jumpsuit.

Goldman Sachs chairman and chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein was in the witness stand at the Rajaratnam trial. But he was merely there to say that Rajat Gupta had violated the company’s confidentiality rules.

Did insider trading cause the 2008 financial crisis? Did it even play a role?

I’m in the camp with Charles Ferguson, the director of Inside Job, that the financial crisis was caused primarily by shoddy mortgages and trading of those bad loans. But unlike Ferguson, I think the ultimate crisis was caused by greed and stupidity.

The top executives of financial institutions were likely unaware or perhaps willfully ignorant of the low-level players who were originating the toxic mortgages and the packaging of the toxic mortgages into even more toxic mortgage-back securities. Delusion, stupidity and greed are not illegal.

Going back to insider trading, the push for information arbitrage is really a push to the edges of ethical and legal operation. Pushing back from the edge is a person’s morality, their sense of right and wrong. The hammer to that morality is potential prosecution for going past the edge. Packer refers to a 2007 of twenty-five hundred Wall Street professionals.

They were asked if they would use inside information to make ten million dollars if the chances of getting caught were fifty per cent. Seven per cent said yes. But, if there was zero chance of getting caught, fifty-eight per cent said that they would break the law.

That is the real problem with under-funding of the SEC. Without sufficient resources, their hammer of prosecution seems like a negligible risk. If traders see their peers trading on inside information and not getting caught, they are more likely to push past that legal edge. The  Rajaratnam is an important signal that you can get caught.

To be effective the SEC needs more cases, not just bigger cases.

Sources: