Category: Fundraising

Intent and the Advertising Rule for Investment Advisers

In it’s prohibition against fraud, deceit and manipulation, Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act is strict. There is no requirement of intent. You can argue that you didn’t mean to mean to commit fraud. That may affect whether you get referred to enforcement instead of merely getting hit with a deficiency letter or an injunction.

Under common law there us generally some requirement of intent. That is not so true under securities laws.

In SEC v. Capital Gains Research, Inc. 375 U.S. 180 (1963) (.pdf 16 pages), the Supreme Court allowed an injunction without a finding of intent to commit fraud.

The foregoing analysis of the judicial treatment of common-law fraud reinforces our conclusion that Congress, in empowering the courts to enjoin any practice which operates “as a fraud or deceit” upon a client, did not intend to require proof of intent to injure and actual injury to the client. Congress intended the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to be construed like other securities legislation “enacted for the purpose of avoiding frauds,” not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes.

The limitations in Rule 206(4)-1 on investment adviser advertising approach the communication from the view of a client or prospective client, not the adviser. The limitations are designed to prevent an adviser from doing things that could be perceived as fraudulent even if the adviser is acting with good intent.

The use of testimonials and ratings are an example of this. More on that subject later.

Sources:

Is it an Advertisement?

Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act prohibits fraud, deception or manipulation, regardless of whether the fund manager is registered. Once registered, Rule 206(4)-1 imposes additional restrictions on advertising that the SEC has determined would be fraudulent deceptive or manipulative.

So what is an advertisement for purposes of the rule 206(4)-1:

“[A]ny notice, circular, letter or other written communication addressed to more than one person, or any notice or other announcement in any publication or by radio or television, which offers (1) any analysis, report, or publication concerning securities, or which is to be used in making any determination as to when to buy or sell any security, or which security to buy or sell, or (2) any graph, chart, formula, or other device to be used in making any determination as to when to buy or sell any security, or which security to buy or sell, or (3) any other investment advisory service with regard to securities.”

That is a very broad definition.

The first thing I notice is that it must be in written. So oral communications do not fall within the definition. A speaking engagement would not be an advertisement for purposes of this rule. However, the Powerpoint presentation would be, especially if it’s handed out or otherwise made available.

The second is that it must be a “communication addressed to more than one person.” So one-on-one communications should fall outside the limitations of this rule.

A reply for a request for information is generally not an advertisement. In the 1984 SEC Letter to the Investment Counsel Association of America, Inc. they pointed out that an unsolicited request by a client, prospective client or consultant for specific information is not an advertisement.

Thus, for example, if a consultant specifically requests an investment adviser to provide it with written information about the adviser’s past specific recommendations, the adviser’s mere communication of that information in writing to the consultant would not, by itself, be an “advertisement” within the meaning of the rule and would not be prohibited by rule 206(4)-1(a)(2) under the Act, so long as the adviser did not directly or indirectly solicit the consultant to make the request. We also would reach the same conclusion if the adviser provided the same information to (a) one consultant that was requesting the information on behalf of several clients or (b) several consultants, so long as the adviser was providing the information in response to a specific, unsolicited request for information about the adviser’s past specific recommendations.

In that same letter, the SEC pointed out that a communication to existing investors is generally not an advertisement. “In general, written communications by advisers to their existing clients about the performance of the securities in their accounts are not offers of investment advisory services but are part of the adviser’s advisory services. ”

Keep in mind that even if the communications falls outside the definition of “advertisement” and the limitations of Rule 206(4)-1, it is still subject to the anti-fraud provision of Section 206.

Sources:

Image is A & P (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.), 246 Third Avenue, Manhattan.. Abbott, Berenice — Photographer. March 16, 1936 made available to the public by the New York Public Library

Marketing Limitations on Private Funds

As a private fund manager registering as an investment adviser, you get new limitations on how you market and sell interests in your funds.

It all starts with Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act:

It shall be unlawful for any investment adviser, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly–

1. to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client;
2. to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client;
…
4. to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative. The Commission shall, for the purposes of this paragraph (4) by rules and regulations define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, such acts, practices, and courses of business as are fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.

In case you didn’t notice, that provision is applicable to all investment advisers, not just registered investment advisers. Since this law was enacted in 1940, it has always been illegal for a private fund manager to engage in fraud, deception or manipulation.

Once you register with the SEC as an investment adviser, the new marketing rules that come into place are in Rule 206(4)-1. That rule lays out five things than an investment adviser can not do with an advertisement:

1.  Refer, directly or indirectly, to any testimonial of any kind concerning the investment adviser or concerning any advice, analysis, report or other service rendered by such investment
adviser; or

2.  Refer, directly or indirectly, to past specific recommendations of such investment adviser which were or would have been profitable to any person: Provided, however, That this shall not prohibit an advertisement which sets out or offers to furnish a list of all recommendations made by such investment adviser within the immediately preceding period of not less than one year if such advertisement, and such list if it is furnished separately: (i) State the name of each such security recommended, the date and nature of each such recommendation (e.g., whether to buy, sell or hold), the market price at that time, the price at which the recommendation was to be acted upon, and the market price of each such security as of the most recent practicable date, and (ii) contain the following cautionary legend on the first page thereof in print or type as large as the largest print or type used in the body or text thereof: “it should not be assumed that recommendations made in the future will be profitable or will equal the performance of the securities in this list”; or

3.  Represent, directly or indirectly, that any graph, chart, formula or other device being offered can in and of itself be used to determine which securities to buy or sell, or when to buy or sell them; or which represents directly or indirectly, that any graph, chart, formula or other device being offered will assist any person in making his own decisions as to which securities to buy, sell, or when to buy or sell them, without prominently disclosing in such advertisement the limitations thereof and the difficulties with respect to its use; or

4.  Contain any statement to the effect that any report, analysis, or other service will be furnished free or without charge, unless such report, analysis or other service actually is or will be furnished entirely free and without any condition or obligation, directly or indirectly; or

5. Contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or which is otherwise false or misleading.

More about some of these later.
Image is Apples and Oranges by Jeremy / http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule Is Effective Today

Dilbert.com

If you have (or want to have) government investors in your private fund then you need to be in compliance with Rule 206(4)-5 starting today.

Summary (from the SEC):

The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that prohibits an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates. The new rule also prohibits an adviser from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third parties are registered broker-dealers or registered investment advisers, in each case themselves subject to pay to play restrictions. Additionally, the new rule prevents an adviser from soliciting from others, or coordinating, contributions to certain elected officials or candidates or payments to political parties where the adviser is providing or seeking government business. The Commission also is adopting rule amendments that require a registered adviser to maintain certain records of the political contributions made by the adviser or certain of its executives or employees. The new rule and rule amendments address “pay to play” practices by investment advisers.

Limitations on Political Contributions

It is now unlawful for an investment adviser to provide “investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.”

The rule defines an official as candidate for an elective office that can

  1. directly or indirectly influence the hiring of an investment adviser, or
  2. has the authority to appoint a person who can directly or indirectly influence the hiring of an investment adviser.

Unfortunately, investment advisers are left on their own to figure out if any political position is one that falls into the prohibited bucket.

De Minimis Exception

There are two de minimis exceptions. For an official they are entitled to vote for, a covered associate can contribute up to $350 per election. That exception is lowered to $150 if they are not entitled to vote for the official.

Record-Keeping

The new rule also imposes new record-keeping requirements. A private fund will need to keep track of

  1. its covered associates
  2. all government entities that are investors
  3. all contributions made to an “official of a government entity”
  4. all contributions made to a political party
  5. all contributions made to a political action committee

You don’t need to keep records if you have no government clients.

Covered Associates

The limitation on contributions only applies to “covered associates.” they key will be identifying who in the organization falls into this category. Who is a Covered Associate?

  1. Any general partner, managing member or executive officer, or other individual with a similar status or function;
  2. Any employee who solicits a government entity for the investment adviser and any person who supervises, directly or indirectly, such employee; and
  3. Any political action committee controlled by the investment adviser or by any person described in 1 or 2.

Good luck.

Sources:

Placement Agent Limitations on Gifts

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board is continuing to tighten the limits on what placement agents can do as part of their fundraising activities for private funds.  Dodd-Frank created a new category of “municipal advisors” and placed them under the regulatory oversight of the MSRB. If your fund uses a placement agent and has government-sponsored investors or is seeking government-sponsored investors then they need to be registered with the MSRB and you need to pay attention to these rules.

The MSRB is proposing a new limitation in Rule G-20:

(a) General Limitation on Value of Gifts and Gratuities.

(ii) Municipal advisors.  No municipal advisor shall, directly or indirectly, give or permit to be given any thing or service of value, including gratuities, in excess of $100 per year to a person other than an employee or partner of such municipal advisor, if such payments or services are in relation to the municipal advisory activities of (including but not limited to solicitation of potential engagements on behalf of) the municipal advisor.

(b) Normal Business Dealings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of section (a) of this rule shall not be deemed to prohibit occasional gifts of meals or tickets to theatrical, sporting, and other entertainments hosted by the broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor; the sponsoring by the broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor of legitimate business functions that are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as deductible business expenses; or gifts of reminder advertising; provided, that such gifts shall not be so frequent or so extensive as to raise any question of propriety.

Amendments to Rule G-8 and Rule G-9 would require a municipal advisor to keep a record of each gift or gratuity given and keep those records for six years.

Even though the MSRB is seeking comments on the proposed changes, I’m skeptical they will be changed. They are merely taking the existing limitations for municipal securities dealers and porting them over to the new class of municipal advisors.

From the fund managers perspective, it would make sense to make sure that your placement agent is complying with the rules and to get copies of their records.

Sources:

Egypt, Mubarak and Politically Exposed Persons

Egypt’s top prosecutor requested the freezing of the foreign assets of ousted president Hosni Mubarak and his family. I expect that is one step in trying to figure out how much of Mubarak’s fortune was derived from corruption. I’ve read reports that his assets could be worth $3 billion and upwards of $70 billion.

That highlights a messier part of the investor due diligence process. Everyone is aware of the blocked-persons list from FinCEN. Those are the bad guys that you are prohibited from doing business with.

Mubarak falls into the category of “politically exposed person.” Those are senior foreign political figures.  They have not necessarily done something wrong, but should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny.

31 CFR 103.179

“In the case of a private banking account for which a senior foreign political figure is a nominal or beneficial owner, the due diligence program required by paragraph (a) of this section shall include enhanced scrutiny of such account that is reasonably designed to detect and report transactions that may involve the proceeds of foreign corruption.”

That is the US standard. The standard will differ from country to country. Switzerland enacted a new law giving officials the ability to freeze accounts belonging to any former leader suspected of corruption.

If you are taking money from foreign leaders you need to be careful and figure out where the money is coming from. If it’s cash from bribes you need to refuse it. The hard part is figuring out where the money came from. The leader could be independently wealthy. They could own successful business. They could be siphoning billions of dollars of foreign aid or skimming from an oil for food program.

If Mubarak showed up with wheelbarrows full of cash, theoretically, these accounts should already have been frozen when the money came in. But I suppose that’s a question of the winners making the rules. Bankers didn’t want to take steps while he was in power. Now that the money is sitting in their vaults, they are happy to freeze it. Especially now that Mubarak doesn’t control a half million soldiers.

Just as a reminder, FinCEN send out an advisory that: “Financial institutions should be aware of the possible impact that events in Egypt may have on patterns of financial activity when assessing risks related to particular customers and transactions.”

Sources:

Image of Muhammad Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt addressing the Opening Plenary session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East 2008 held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt is by the World Economic Forum

The SEC is Looking at Advisers’ Use of Social Media

According to a story in Investment News, the Securities and Exchange Commission began a sweep of investment advisers’ use of social media and social networking last month.

The story hast a quote from Doug Flynn, an adviser at Flynn Zito Capital Management LLC, that is exactly on target for traditional investment advisers:

“I’d love to start tweeting to the general public once they can clearly tell me what I can and can’t do. However, putting yourself out there too much without specific guidelines is just not worth the risk.”

I don’t think the same is true for private fund managers who will soon have to register with SEC as investment advisers. How does the SEC’s regulation of Web 2.0 affect private fund managers once they register as investment advisers?

Not much.

Private funds are limited by the prohibition on general solicitation and advertisement.  They usually rely on Regulation D to keep from having to register the interests in their funds. Rule 502(c) of Regulation D states that “neither the issuer nor any person acting on its behalf shall offer or sell the securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Any advertisement, article, notice or other communication published in any newspaper, magazine, or similar media or broadcast over television or radio; and

2. Any seminar or meeting whose attendees have been invited by any general solicitation or general advertising. . . “

The very public nature of social media and social networking sites are going to put them squarely in the box limited by this regulation. Even though there is some ability for a fund manager to use social media under the Investment Advisers Act, that ability is curtailed by the limitations under the Securities Act. Certainly, fund managers and their personnel can use web 2.0 tools for personal reasons and business reasons not related to advertising their firm or its funds. (You will notice that I don’t publish posts about my firm or its funds.)

Sources:

Whether the Advertising or Solicitation Was General in Nature Under Rule 502(c)

Barnum and Bailey Limited Stock Certificate Earlier, I posted on Fund Raising Publicity. I ended by pointing out that Rule 502(c) prohibits general solicitation or general advertisement that occurs in connection with a Regulation D securities offering. This is to separate typical company advertising if a company advertises with no intention to “offer or sell the securities of the issuer” then such advertising should not violate rule 502(c). Yesterday, I focused on the first part of the analysis is Did Advertising or Solicitation to Offer or Sell Securities Occur?

This post focuses on whether the advertising or solicitation was general in nature.

The S.E.C. has interpreted Rule 502(c) to allow for non-general advertising, meaning advertising in which the issuer and offeree have a “pre-existing, substantive relationship.”

In 1982 the SEC gave no-action relief to a partnership that proposed to mail a written offer to three hundred and thirty people who had previously invested in another limited partnerships from the same sponsor. (Woodtrails -Seattle, No Action Letter, 1982 WL 29366, (Aug. 9, 1982)) The Commission found that these investors had a pre-established relationship with the general partner, who was described to have had a reasonable belief that the offerees were knowledgeable and experienced in financial matters.

In comparison, when a partnership dedicated to boarding, breeding, and training race horses sought to solicit investments by conducting a mailing to the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association members, distributing brochures at a horse sale, and advertising in a horse racing trade journal The Commission did not give relief. Aspen Grove, No-Action Letter, 1982 WL 29706 (Dec. 8, 1982). So related interests alone are not enough to create a substantive relationship.

“The types of relationships with offerees that may be important in establishing a general solicitation has not taken place are those that would enable the issuer (or a person acting on its behalf) to be aware of the financial circumstances or sophistication of the person with whom the relationship exists or that otherwise are of some substance and duration.” Mineral Lands Research & Marketing Corp., S.E.C. No-Action Letter, 1985 WL 55694 (Dec. 4 1985).

The other alternative is the use of a broker-dealer. A broker-dealer may establish a relationship through general advertising or general solicitation, so long as such solicitation does not promote the offer or sale of securities. The broker-dealer can then solicit information from a potential investor to see if they have sufficient financial circumstances or sophistication. “A satisfactory response by a prospective offeree to a questionnaire that provides a broker-dealer with sufficient information to evaluate the respondent’s sophistication and financial situation will establish a substantive relationship.” H.B. Shaine Co., S.E.C. No-Action Letter, 1987 WL 108648 (May 1, 1987). The questionnaire cannot be too general otherwise you won’t be able to determine if the offering would be appropriate in light of the suitability standards established by the issuer . Questionnaires to potential investors must be “generic in nature” and can “not make reference to any specific investment currently offered or contemplated for offering.” Bateman, S.E.C. No Action Letter, 1985 WL 55679 (Dec. 3, 1985).

The consequences of making a general solicitation or general advertisement can be seen an administrative action taken against Kenman Corporation. The SEC found that Kenman violated Section 5 of the Securities Act by engaging in a public offering without registration. Kenman’s offering did not qualify for exemption under Regulation D or Section 4(2) because the SEC determined that Kenman had engaged in general solicitation. They had mailed materials to  a large number of people taken from a list of executive officers of Fortune 500 companies, a list of physicians, a list of company presidents in a certian area and other general lists. Kenman Corp. Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-6505 (Apr. 19, 1985)


The image is Barnum and Bailey Limited Stock Certificate in the public domain and available on Wikimedia Commons.

Advertising or Solicitation to Offer or Sell Securities Under Rule 502(c)

BirminghamMotorsStock.jpeg Stock certificate for 10 shares of Birmingham Motors automobile company

Yesterday, I posted on Fund Raising Publicity. I ended by pointing out that Rule 502(c) prohibits general solicitation or general advertisement that occurs in connection with a Regulation D securities offering. This is to separate typical company advertising if a company advertises with no intention to “offer or sell the securities of the issuer” then such advertising should not violate rule 502(c).

The first part of the analysis is Did Advertising or Solicitation to Offer or Sell Securities Occur?

In one example, Printing Enters. Management Science Inc. wanted to engage in promotional activities relating to the products and services that it offered. Since these promotional activities were to occur simultaneously with a private securities offering, the SEC was confronted with the question of whether these marketing activity were intended to facilitate the offer or sale of securities. (Printing Enters. Management Science, Inc., No Action Letter (issued Apr. 25, 1983)).The SEC declined to grant no-action relief stating that it could only evaluate whether the advertisement was in direct support of an offer or sale of securities by evaluating all the specific facts surrounding this promotion.

The SEC expanded the coverage of Rule 502(c) in its Gerstenfeld No-Action letter (Gerstenfeld, No-Action Letter, 1985 WL 55681 (Dec. 3, 1985)), explicitly prohibiting advertisements that occurred even when a private placement was not simultaneously occurring. In Gerstenfeld, a syndicator wished to place an advertisement generally stating that it sells securities, and inviting parties to contact the syndicator for further information. The SEC declined to recommend no-action.The staff concluded that the advertisement constituted a “general” advertisement and was designed to sell securities of entities that are, or will be, affiliated with the syndicator. It did not matter whether the syndicator was then in the process of selling partnership interests since the primary purpose of the advertisement is to sell securities and to condition the market for future sales.

In Alma Securities Corp. (August 2, 1982) the Staff took the position that tombstone advertisements published following the completion of a private placement could violate Rule 502(c) if they help solicit investors to invest in contemporaneous or future offerings. As stated by the staff, “where a sponsor or issuer conducts an ongoing program of private or limited offerings, tombstone announcements for the completion of each individual offering could be used to solicit investors to the program as a whole.”

The advertisement need not be one from the issuer. Third party advertisement can also cause problems. The SEC has declined to provide no-action relief regarding whether an advertisement would violate Rule 502(c) if the issuer did not sponsor the advertisement and it was published in an independent source (Oil and Gas Investor, No-Action Letter (Jan. 23, 1984)). The SEC declined to provide no-action relief to a question regarding whether an independent source could distribute reviews and analyses of various private offerings to a limited group of paid subscribers. (Tax Inv. Information Corp., No Action Letter, 1983 WL 29834 (Feb. 7, 1983)). The SEC seems to review these on a case by case basis.

Image is a Stock certificate for 10 shares of Birmingham Motors in the public domain, available on Wikimedia Commons.

Fund Raising Publicity

1903 stock certificate of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad

Under the U.S. securities laws, it is important for private investment funds to avoid engaging in a “general solicitation” or “general advertising” prior to and during fund raising. The key to private investment funds and the private offering of interests in the funds is that they are “private.”

Assuring the private nature of an offering means that not only the issuer, but any party acting on its behalf, must refrain from generally soliciting potential purchaser. This means that a fund and its agents (which includes all management, personnel, placement agents,attorneys, accountants and other representatives) must be careful during the fund raising period not to make statements to the general public with regard to an investment in a fund.

Rule 502(c) of Regulation D states the limitation as “neither the issuer nor any person acting on its behalf shall offer or sell the securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Any advertisement, article, notice or other communication published in any newspaper, magazine, or similar media or broadcast over television or radio; and

2. Any seminar or meeting whose attendees have been invited by any general solicitation or general advertising. . . “

If a fund or its agents make statements that could be viewed as a “general advertising” or “general solicitation”, the SEC could impose a “cooling-off period.” This would typically mean a cessation of all fundraising and a moratorium on fund closings for a period of several months. A “general solicitation” could also trigger registration of the fund sponsor or the fund under the Advisers Act or the Investment Company Act.

The SEC has indicated that it believes that the following actions violate Rule 502(c):

1. Mass mailings

2. Speaking to the media about a solicitation when funding or investment matters are discussed, whether such speech is directed at current fundraising efforts or deemed to be an attempt to “condition the market” by making reference to the success or attractive return of previous investments.

3. Print, radio and television advertisements or solicitations regarding funding or investment matters

4. Tombstone advertising (an ad which does no more than give the barest of information) is held by SEC staff to “condition the market” for the securities and therefore constituted an offer even though the tombstone did not specifically mention the transaction in question.

Rule 502(c) prohibits general solicitation or general advertisement that occurs in connection with a Regulation D securities offering. This is to separate typical company advertising if a company advertises with no intention to “offer or sell the securities of the issuer” then such advertising should not violate rule 502(c).

The image is a 1903 stock certificate of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the public domain and available on Wikimedia Commons.