SEC Document Request Letters

Stack of Papers

As a fund manager one of the best ways to be prepared for a visit from the Securities and Exchange Commission is to practice. You should grab a recent document request from a SEC examination. Then give yourself one week to pull all the requested information together in a coherent package.

I put together a collection of SEC Document Requests. Hopefully you might find this collection useful.

By doing a practice run, you will have a collection of documents ready to go if the SEC suddenly arrives. You may also find some weak spots in your internal records.

It gives you a chance to make sure that you know who in the firm is responsible for maintaining the information and that they will keep it update.

Of course, the document request letters vary greatly from the books and records requirements in SEC Rule 204-2. I expect we may see some changes in that rule after the SEC has run through its presence exam program and digested the record-keeping of private funds.

So far, I have seven nine 10 request letter examples plus links to 3 more on IA Watch, but I’m looking for more. If you have an document request example and are willing to share it, you can send it to [email protected]. I will always delete any information about the firm and I will only publish any additional information about the letter that you consent to.

References:

Photo of Stack of Papers is by Jenni From the Block
CC BY

More Guidance on Knowledgeable Employee Exemption for Private Funds

Board of Directors and Officers of the Industrial Exhibition Association of Toronto 1930

A new no-action letter from the SEC’s Division of Investment Management should allow more employees of a fund manager to invest in their firm’s private funds under the Investment Company Act. Even better for the compliance department, compliance staff could fit the expanded definition of a “knowledgeable employee.”

When operating under the Section 3(c)(7) exemption from the Investment Company Act, the issue becomes how a private investment fund can provide an equity ownership to key employees. Its unlikely that your key employees will have the $5 million in investments needed to qualify as an investor. (Each investor in a 3(c)(7) private investment fund must be Qualified Purchaser.) When operating under the Section 3(c)(1) exemption, you need to worry about employee taken up one of those valuable 100 spots.

The SEC established Rule 3C-5 to allow “knowledgeable employees” to invest in their company’s private fund without having to be a qualified purchaser. The rule also exempts these knowledgeable employees from the 100 investor limit under the Section 3(c)(1) exemption from the Investment Company Act.

Rule 3C-5 creates two categories of “knowledgeable employees”. The first category of “knowledgeable employees” is the management of the covered company, which covers these positions:

  • director [see Section 2(a)(12)]
  • trustee
  • general partner
  • advisory board member [see Section 2(a)(1)]
  • “executive officer”

Executive Officer is defined in Rule 3C-5 as:

  • president
  • vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division or function
  • any other officer who performs a policy-making function
  • any other person who performs a similar policy-making function

The second group of knowledgeable employees are those who participate in the investment activities. Those employees need to meet these requirements:

  • Participate in the investment activities in connection with his or her regular functions or duties,
  • has been performing such functions and duties for at least 12 months, and
  • is not performing solely clerical, secretarial or administrative functions.

It’s a typically fuzzy definition. I expect most fund managers have people that clearly fit in the definition, some that are clearly outside the definition, and some that are in a gray area. It depends on how you define “principal business unit”, “policy-making function”, and “participates in the investment activities”. There was a 1999 American Bar Association SEC No Action Letter that provided some guidance. This no-action letter goes even further.

Your IT head is likely to be happy with the guidance on “principal business unit”:

“While the ultimate determination of whether any business unit, division, or function should be deemed principal is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis, we believe that an investment manager could determine that its IT and investor relations departments are principal business units, divisions, or functions under the circumstances described above and, accordingly, the individual in charge of each such department could be a knowledgeable employee.”

In particular, the guidance points out that unit need not be part of the investment activities to be considered principal.

The letter opens a bit wider the definition of “policy-making function”:

“Further, we agree that the rule does not require that the policy-making function be concentrated in one individual and that employees serving as active members of a group or committee that develop and adopt an investment manager’s policies, such as the valuation committee, could be executive officers under the rule. We do not believe that individuals who merely observe committee proceedings or merely provide information or analysis to the decision-makers of a committee or group would be engaged in making policy and, therefore, such individuals generally would not be executive officers under the rule.

On the “participate in investment activities” term, the SEC says each of these could fit in the definition, depending on the facts and circumstances:

  • member of the analytical or risk team who regularly develops models and systems to implement the Covered Fund’s trading strategies
  • trader who regularly is consulted for analysis or advice by a portfolio manager during the investment process
  • tax professional who is regularly consulted for analysis or advice by a portfolio manager
  • attorney who regularly analyzes legal terms and provisions of investments

The SEC steps away from creating a bright line and leaves it up to the private fund to address the particular facts and circumstances for each employee. But you will need to write down why you treated an employee as a “knowledgeable employee.”

“[I]nvestment managers should maintain in their books and records a written record of employees the investment manager has permitted to invest in a Covered Fund as knowledgeable employees and should be able to explain the basis in the rule pursuant to which the employee qualifies as a knowledgeable employee.”

References:

Weekend Reading: The Undercover Economist Strikes Back

Undercover Economist Strikes Back

Financial Times columnist and bestselling author Tim Harford tries to show us that macroeconomics is not that hard in The Undercover Economist Strikes Back.

In order to fix the economy, we need to understand the economy. The book is a “practically minded poke-around under the hood of our economic system.” It’s a sequel to The Undercover Economist, which looked at microeconomics. The first book looked at the cost of coffee and other focused topics that affect an individual’s behavior.

The Undercover Economist Strikes Back tackles the world and the uncertainty of macroeconomics. These are the big forces of gross domestic product, inflation, and unemployment. Rather than a droll, laborious discussion of complex theories, Harford keeps things witty and perky.

The book is not about bashing big banks or pointing fingers at who caused the financial crisis of 2008. But he does discuss the macroeconomic forces in light of the recovery (or lack thereof) from the 2008 crisis.

He does not try to oversimplify the topics. He cautions that they are difficult to understand, difficult to calculate, and difficult to get right. He offers advice and lessons from history.

He explains the theory of currency with the extraordinary example of the rai used by the Yap islanders in Micronesia. Each rai is a stone wheel, the biggest of which is nine feet across and weighs over four tons. That will help you buy land. Smaller ones, a mere foot or two across, will buy you a pig. The islanders still use the currency even if it has sunk to the bottom of the bay while being transported in a boat. Given the small number of transactions, the islanders can just keep track who owns which stone, without having to move the big ones. But is the Yap system any crazier than the use of gold?

He tackles the thornier problem of the cause of recessions. Is it a shortage of demand or a shortage of supply? Or both? Was the 2008 recession a demand shock or a supply shock? It’s surprisingly fun to get to the answers with Harford leading the way.

I was happy to accept a review copy from the publisher.

Compliance Bricks and Mortar for February 14

IMG_1526[1]

These are some of the compliance-related stories that recently caught my attention.

New SEC investor advocate says he has investor-protection genes by Mark Schoeff Jr. in Investment News

Mr. Fleming will head an office that is responsible for ensuring that the concerns of retail investors are elevated at the commission, as well as at self-regulatory organizations such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. He will identify problems investors are having with financial firms and products and make recommendations on how rules and regulations can better protect them.

Are you keeping track of your compliance costs? by Jeff Kaplan in Conflicts of Interest Blog

Compliance costs come in various forms. Among the most prominent are salaries and related expenses for in-house personnel doing C&E work on a full- or part time basis (i.e., not just C&E officers but, to some extent, personnel in HR, Legal and Audit). Another category of out-of-pocket C&E costs are those incurred for external products/services, such as computer-based training, hotline providers, case management or other GRC software or C&E program assessments . Out of pocket costs, of course, are fairly easy to calculate – and are, I believe, often taken into account by government officials in weighing the efficacy of C&E programs. – See more at: http://conflictofinterestblog.com/2014/02/are-you-keeping-track-of-your-compliance-costs.html#sthash.ZWhofIfd.dpuf

On Beauty and Biking in Freakonomics

Sole author Erik Postma also asked the participants to rate the man’s masculinity and likeability, and asked whether the rater, if female, was on hormonal contraception. The results were clear. The most attractive men were also, unbeknownst to raters, the riders that performed best.

K&L Gates discusses Third Party Certification Procedure Designed to Comply with New SEC Rules Permitting General Solicitation in Reg D Private Offerings by Gary J. Kocher in CLS Blue Sky BLog

Consistent with this view, we have prepared the attached sample Status Certification Letter that is designed to allow an individual investor to approach one of his or her existing trusted advisors that is a Permitted Third Party Verifier (lawyer, CPA, etc.) to provide a certification of the underlying information on which the issuer may base its determination of the status of the investor. The form is designed so that a non-lawyer can easily check a box as to the level of income/net worth and type of information that has been reviewed within the scope of the rule. Because the certification can be made by an existing trusted advisor, the advisor may already be in possession of the information on which the certification is made, thereby reducing the burden on the investor. The form also clearly specifies that the Permitted Third Party Verifier assumes no liability for (i) the accuracy of the information provided by the investor or (ii) the ultimate determination as to whether the investor meets the requirements to be accredited.

Bad Apple: REITs fined $1.5 million for disclosure violations by Bruce Kelly in Investment News

The Apple REITs failed to value the REITs properly, disclose numerous related-party transactions and divulge executive compensation of four REITs, according to a SEC cease-and-desist order, which was a settlement between the SEC and the various respondents.

Filing Form D and General Solicitation

soap box

One of the current issues around a fund manager or company from using advertising as part of its private placement fundraising is the proposed changes to filing requirements for Form D.

Few people I have spoken with actually want to use general solicitation like bulk emails, newspaper ads, or web ads. But they do want to be able to mention fundraising at industry events, advertise the fund manager as a brand, and talk to the media. All of those could be considered general advertising and solicitation or could come close to the line. The SEC has not created a bright line test for when an announcement becomes general and endangers a private placement.

Many people embraced the lifting of the ban on general solicitation and advertising because the fund manager or company could avoid the advertising foot fault of private placement.

The requirement that a firm take reasonable steps to determine if potential investor is accredited is one impediment. For funds with large minimum investment requirements and mostly institutional investors, it’s probably less of an impediment.

The foot-faults under the proposed rule are even greater.

For instance, the proposed rule would require filing of Form D before a general advertisement or solicitation begins. That’s a problem when it’s not clear whether an activity falls under those terms. It’s also a problem if the terms of the offering change over the course of the pre-sale marketing period. Often, a private fund’s terms are not complete during the initial marketing phase.

Even worse, the proposed rule imposes a draconian ban on the use of private placements if you failed to file the Form D before the activity that would be considered general advertising and solicitation.

I agree that not requiring the filing until 15 days after the first sale is not the best method to provide information to investors or regulators. I think the better position is to require the filing 15 days before the first sale.

The proposed rule 510T would also require filing the materials used in general solicitation and advertisements with the SEC. Again, with those terms not well defined it’s hard to know if you have violated the rule. If the materials escape and get published in the media, you’ve potentially blown the private placement and the filing requirement with no ability to cure.

According to Jim Hamilton’s World of Securities Regulation, seven Senators have urged the SEC to adopt the proposed rules to help state securities regulators. Broc Romanek in theCorporateCounsel.net notes that SEC Commissioner Aguilar has weighed in supporting the proposed rules as necessary for investor protection.

Fund managers may be intrigued by the lifting of advertising requirements, they are more likely to cause a foot-fault than staying under the existing private placement regime.

References:

 

 

 

OCIE Director Drew Bowden On Exams, CCO liability and more

ia watch ia week

IA Watch was able to get Drew Bowden, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, to sit down for an interview. “The best thing [CCOs] can do is to be organized, be responsive and be helpful to the examination staff”. This can be measured by how timely you produce requested documents. “It’s most helpful” when firms begin an exam by educating examiners “about the nature of their business [and] what they’re trying to accomplish from a business perspective,”

Portions of the interview are available for your viewing:

IA Watch Interviews Drew Bowden, Part 1



IA Watch Interviews OCIE Director Drew Bowden, Part 2

References:

IA Watch Exclusive: OCIE Director Drew Bowden talks exam do’s and don’ts, CCO liability and more
(subscription required)

When a Real Estate Investment Empire Turns Into a Ponzi Scheme

money compliance ponzi real estate

Real estate investment is capital intensive. Most opportunistic and value-add real estate investments are not cash flow positive for the entire ownership of the asset. As some point, an investment may be using equity to pay outstanding interest on debt. The line between a ponzi scheme and long term investment can hinge on the nature of disclosure and the form of financing.

The use of notes issued to investors instead of partnership interests is going to cause a cash crunch when times get bad. There is not enough equity to take the loss. Proper disclosure can help. It’s theoretically possible that the proper disclosure that new investment money is being used to pay interest on other notes will cure the problem. (Of course, it will greatly diminish your chances of getting new investors.) Lying to the new investors will get you into trouble.

Michael Stewart and John Packard  are charged with lying to investors. SEC and DOJ charges against real estate companies usually catch my eye. Bad behavior reflects poorly on the industry as a whole. Stewart and Packard got into trouble with their Pacific Property Assets empire. Like many real estate investments, the investments were not cash flow positive. The investments realized returns when the real estate had appreciated in value and was either sold or re-financed. I assume things were running fine for several years as the company was investing, refinancing, and selling apartments in southern California and Arizona.

Then 2007 came along and the real estate debt markets starting cooling down and residential real estate started decreasing in value. According the criminal indictment, this is when they stepped over the line. (Stewart and Packard have not had a chance to defend themselves and I only have the government’s side of the facts.)

According to the indictment throughout 2008 and the early part of 2009, they continued to solicit new investor but failed to disclose the changing fortunes of the company. Stewart and Packard raised over $35 million in promissory note offerings. According to the prosecutors, the disclosure documents were materially misleading, deceptive or fraudulent.

Stewart and Packard claimed to have obtained over $15 million in refinancing proceeds during the first six months of 2008. According to the indictment, they actually obtained $0.

Their last offering was an opportunity fund in 2009 in which they raised $9 million claiming it would be used to “acquire, renovate and operate additional workforce level apartments.” Instead, the proceeds were used to pay other investors and their own salaries.

The investment scheme collapsed in May 2009 when they defaulted on repayment of the notes and filed for bankruptcy in June 2009.

The FBI dug deeper and also found bank fraud. In applying for a loan from Vineyard Bank, Stewart and Packard submitted false financial statement for Pacific Property Assets. That got them the mortgage loan, but also got them a criminal charge for bank fraud under 18 U.S. Code §1344.

To top it off, Stewart and Packard transferred cash out of the company after they defaulted on the loans but before they declared bankruptcy. They hoped to save some cash. Instead, they got another criminal charge.

I read the complaint as two guys trying to hold their real estate empire together as times turned hard, hoping they could hold out until prices once again increased. But instead they great recession grabbed hold and they had no hope of getting out of the hole they dug. They dug the hole deeper each time they lied to their investors and banks.

That didn’t seem to deter them because they came back in 2010 with a new partner and new company: Apartments America. The SEC brought charges against them in 2012. (The DOJ filed the charges on the older scheme in January 2014 and just beat the statute of limitations.)

The new scheme involved selling membership units in LLCs that would purchase apartment buildings. They used general solicitation to do so, with newspaper ads, websites, and cold calls. They cherry-picked investments and showed great returns. They failed to disclose the Pacific Property bankruptcy.

In looking through the defense motions, the lawyers did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. I see the potential that the LLC membership interests might not be securities. It would depend on the investors rights under the LLC agreement. It appears from the pleadings that the SEC approached them and they made some changes to the advertisements. But the SEC was not happy with the changes to the website. That lead to enforcement and likely lead to the DOJ involvement.

References:

Weekend Reading: Ingenious

Layout 1

In 2007, the X Prize Foundation announced that it would give $10 million to anyone who could build a safe, mass-producible car that could travel 100 miles on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gas. The challenge attracted more than one hundred teams from all over the world. Jason Fagone follows four of those teams in Ingenious: A True Story of Invention, Automotive Daring, and the Race to Revive America.

The X Prize Foundation is most famously known for its first challenge to launch a spacecraft capable of carrying three people to 100 kilometers above the earth’s surface, twice within two weeks. The XPrize is modeled on the prize that got Lindbergh to fly across the Atlantic. (He was not just an adventurer; He was flying for the Orteig Prize of $25,000.) The X Prize founder uses the “bald appeal of human greed to achieve an idealistic goal.” Like the Orteig Prize, the Space X prize had very simple rules.

The Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize was a bit more muddled. Originally it was supposed to be a cross country race. Then it became a series of tests at the Michigan International Speedway. It had three categories: Mainstream, Alternative Tandem, and Alternative side-by-side.

Fagone looks at these four teams as the prepare for and compete for the prize.

Oliver Kuttner’s Edison2 cars get the most ink. His theme was a relentless focus on reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. He had a car for each of the three categories.

Team Illuminati was literally built in the cornfields of Illinois. The team was lead by a part-time tinkerer using electric motors.

The West Philly Hybrid X Team was mostly students from the after school program at a West Philadelphia High School. Their goal was to make existing mainstream cars more efficient. They rebuilt a Ford GT using biodiesel and a Ford Focus with a hybrid electric gas system.

Aptera chose to go with a lightweight three-wheeled coupe. This was the best funded team of the four.

The book is well-written and enjoyable to read. At times I struggled to keep track of which team was which. Eventually, Edison2 elbows the other teams out of the narrative and takes a more prominent role in the book. I think that’s because the team leader was a big robust character all by himself.

The narrative itself drags and lacks the suspense of a good climax because of the design of the competition. The tests happened over a series of weeks in June and July of 2010. The winner was announced later in September.

There are bits of the subtitle sprinkled in the book about how to revive innovation and development in America. The goal of the X Prize is encourage that kind of innovation and forward-thinking. As the prize rules got muddled for the automotive competition, so the narrative of this book got muddled.

Disclaimer: The publisher provided me with a review copy of the book.

 

Compliance Bricks and Mortar for February 7

IMG_1523[1]

These are some of the compliance-related stories that recently caught my attention.

The Financial industry – Life is Getting Tough by Michael Volkov in Corruption, Crime & Compliance

In recent statements from the Justice Department and regulatory officials, prosecutors and regulators have warned the industry that individuals may be prosecuted in the future for money laundering violations. As I always say, when the government says something – they mean it. The government does not prosecute or enforce the laws in secret.

The FCPA and Fight Against Terrorism by Tom FOx in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

I admit it took me awhile to finally get it. I have long wondered what could have caused the explosion in Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Starting in about 2004, FCPA enforcement has not only been on the increase from the previous 25 years of its previous existence but literally exploded. Of course, I had heard Dick Cassin and Dan Chapman, most prominently among others, talk and write about FCPA enforcement as an anti-terrorism security issue post 9/11, but I never quite bought into it because I did not understand the theoretical underpinnings of such an analysis.

SEC No-Action Letter Addresses “M&A Brokers” by Keith Paul Bishop in California Corporate & Securities Law blog

Martin A. Hewitt alerted me to this no-action letter issued on January 31, 2014 by the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets.  The letter was issued in response to a request by six lawyers, including Mr. Hewitt.  In very broad terms the letter states that the Division would not recommend enforcement “if an M&A Broker were to effect securities transactions in connection with the transfer of ownership of a privately-held company under the terms and conditions described in your letter without registering as a broker-dealer pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act”.  The letter describes an M&A broker as “a person engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions solely in connection with the transfer of ownership and control of a privately-held company (as defined below) through the purchase, sale, exchange, issuance, repurchase, or redemption of, or a business combination involving, securities or assets of the company, to a buyer that will actively operate the company or the business conducted with the assets of the company.”

Improve Your Company’s Ethical Performance by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Registration is now open for “Creating an Ethical Corporate Culture.” If you’re looking for ways to improve the culture and performance of your company or team, join us for this free online self-paced course, that provides the knowledge and tools to help you create and sustain an ethical corporate culture.

SEC Sanctions University Professors For Naked Short Scheme by Thomas O. Gorman in SEC Actions

Two university professors settled fraud charges brought in an SEC administrative proceeding centered on a naked short selling scheme. The scheme yielded profits of over $400,000. In the Matter of Gonul Colak, Adm. Proc. File No. 3-15712 (Jan. 3, 2014). Milen Kostov, a professor at an unidentified university, created an options trading scheme crafted to evade restrictions on naked short selling, profiting from pricing differences for hard to borrow securities and from holding the positions open. He shared the strategy with his friend Gonul Colak, also a professor at an unidentified university.

Working on the Railroad is Not Insider Trading

railroad

Gary Griffiths was a vice president and chief mechanical officer at Florida East Coast Railway. Cliff Steffes was a trainman at the Bowden Rail Yard for the company and the nephew of Gary. Gary and Cliff noticed there was a surprising number of tours of the rail yard by men in suits. Gary’s boss asked him to prepare a list of equipment owned by the company. They thought the company was for sale and thought they could profit from the sale.

The SEC thought their stock trading was illegal.

But a jury thought otherwise.

Certainly, the trading conduct of Griffiths’ and Steffes’ families was unusual. They made out-sized bets on a rise in stock price using options and stock purchases. Before the date of the family’s trades, they had never purchase a stock option.

But trading on information is not illegal, unless there is an obligation to not trade. Griffiths and Steffes were both restricted from trading based on the railway’s code of conduct. That prohibits them from trading based on material information about the company which had not been publicly disclosed.

The big question the SEC would have to answer for the jury was that the information discovered by Griffiths and Steffes was the kind of information that should prevent them trading. A bunch of suits walking around the train yard is not necessarily indicative of an impending increase in stock price. Given the open nature of train yards, many non-employees could have witnessed the behavior.

When talking about material non-public information I often go to the urban legend of the fund manager who would count cars in a retailer’s parking lot as measure of financial performance. That parking lot count is clearly not information subject to prosecution for illegal insider trading. Reading an earnings release before it’s public likely would be. The trainmen’s situation sounds a lot more like the parking lot situation than the earnings release.

I would guess that the SEC saw the suspect behavior and was hoping to find something more as the case developed. According to the jury, the SEC did not find enough.

References:

Image is Railroads. Men working on locomotive by Horydczak, Theodor, approximately 1890-1971