Private Company Shares, Valuation, and Employee Stock Repurchases

There has always been a theoretical discussion that there could be insider trading on private company shares. I have not seen the theory tested in court. However, a recent enforcement case by the SEC gets close to the theory. The case involves a company re-purchasing shares from employees at a discounted price.

The SEC makes the bold charge that from November 2006 through April 2009, Stiefel Laboratories Inc. defrauded shareholders out of more than $110 million, at the direction of Defendant Charles W. Stiefel, its then chairman and CEO. For example, in late 2008 and early 2009 while purchasing shares for less than $16,500 a share, Steifel did not inform them that the company was in the midst of negotiating the sale at a price of more than $68,000 per share.

The Stiefel family founded Stiefel Labs in 1847 and began to develop some of the world’s first medicated soaps and dermatology products in 1946. The Company has been privately-held, and since 1952 the Stiefel family has been the majority shareholder. Beginning in approximately 1975, Stiefel Labs’ employees began acquiring Stiefel Labs common stock as part of a defined contribution plan. All Stiefel Labs employees located in the United States became participants in the Plan after their first year of employment. Each year, Stiefel Labs made discretionary contributions to the Plan in the form of Stiefel Labs stock or cash. From 1975 to 2008, the Company made contributions of stock, but in 2008, for the first time in its history, the Company contributed only cash. At the time the company was the world’s largest private manufacturer of dermatology products. Charles W. Stiefel also served as the trustee of the plan.

Each year, the company would engage a third-party accountant to determine the price the company would pay shareholders for stock buy backs. According to the SEC complaint, this is where the trouble began. The SEC alleges that accountant used a flawed methodology and was not qualified to perform valuations. The SEC also alleges that Stiefel failed to disclose crucial information about offers and valuations the company received from investment firms. The valuation was only conducted once year.

According to the SEC complaint, the real trouble began in October 2008 when the company was at risk of violating some debt covenants. A part of the austerity measures, the company started buying back stock from current employees, not just from former employees. It’s also around this time that the company started seriously entertaining offers to purchase the company or at least a big chunk of the company.

From December 2008 to April 2009, while seeking bids for its sale the company purchased stock from employees at a price of $16,469 per share. An April 20, 2009 the company announced its sale to Glaxo and closed on July 22, 2009 resulting in a price of $68,131 for shares held in the retirement plan.

Assuming the facts in the SEC complaint are correct, I have some sympathy for the Stiefel. The negotiations with buyers had non-disclosure provisions that likely prevented them from disclosing the purchase price. On the other hand, some of the messages disclosed in the complaint indicate a grab for cash.

This does show that the SEC’s anti-fraud rule in 10b-5 of the Exchange Act can apply to private company transactions. That would prevent a party with material, non-public information from buying or selling those securities. In this case the private company had the information and the employees in the plan did not. Reliance on a third-party valuation is not enough.

Sources:

–

FTC, Bloggers, and Disclosure

The Federal Trade Commission is continuing to pursue bloggers who fail to disclose that they received incentives to discuss a company’s products. Back in December, the Federal Trade Commission released new guidelines that specifically required bloggers to disclose any material connections to a product or company they are writing about. The FTC is focusing its efforts on the company.

The latest company snared in the failure to disclose is Hyundai. The FTC took a close look at a promotion in which bloggers were given gift certificates as an incentive to include links to Hyundai videos in their posts or to comment on Hyundai’s Super Bowl ads. One focus was whether the bloggers were told to disclose or were told not to disclose that they had received compensation.

It seems Hyundai’s first defense was that it wasn’t their fault, but he fault of their advertising agency. The FTC won’t take that defense and pointed out that advertisers are legally responsible for the actions working directly or indirectly for them.

What saved Hyundai is that their established social media policy calls for bloggers to disclose the receipt of compensation. What saved Hyundai’s advertising agency was that their established social media policy calls for bloggers to disclose the receipt of compensation.

By having the policies in place, Hyundai and the advertising agency were able to establish that the bad actions were those of rogue employee operating outside the established policies of the firms. That’s compliance in action.

Sources:

Placement Agent Policies for Massachusetts Public Pension Systems

The local retirement boards in Massachusetts are subject to new regulations regarding placement agents. That means if you have one of the boards as investor in your fund or a client in your advisory business, you need to supply new information to your clients/investors.

Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission is the umbrella regulatory organization that oversees the dozens of local retirement boards in the Commonwealth. Last month they issued Memorandum #34 that implements the new PERAC Placement Agents Policy (.pdf).

As a manager you will need to provide:

(a) a statement whether you used a placement agent

(b)  a resume detailing education, professional designations, regulatory licenses and investment and work experience.  If he or she is a current or former member of a retirement board, employee or consultant or immediate family of such a person that fact should be specifically noted.

(c)  a description of any and all compensation of any kind provided or agreed to be provided to a placement agent, including the nature, timing and value thereof;

(d)  a description of the services to be performed by the placement agent

(e) a written copy of any and all agreements between the manager and the placement agent

 (f) in the event that any current or former Massachusetts public pension system board members, employees, consultants or other service providers have suggested the retention of the placement agent, the names of that person

 (g)  a statement that the placement agent has a minimum of three years experience in the investment field

 (h)  a statement that the placement agent is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or, if appropriate, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The pension board will have to include a provision in the investment management agreement that in the case of a breach will allow the board to terminate the agreement and have two years of management fees returned.

Sources:

The Cost of Regulating Fund Managers and Investment Advisers

A group of organizations with Investment Adviser stakeholders engaged the Boston Consulting Group to conduct an economic analysis of IA oversight scenarios (.pdf) in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s study released in January 2011. The analysis came down solidly in favor of increased funding of the SEC as the solution for increased oversight of investment advisers.

BCG looked at the three options in the SEC’s 914 study: (1) enhancing the SEC’s ability to oversee advisers (2) allowing FINRA to oversee RIAs and (3) creating a new IA-only SRO. The first option was examined in two segments: (a) giving the SEC enough examiners to do the job and (b) full resources. The costs represented what it would take for each option to examine every registered investment adviser firm at least once every four years.

Estimates from BCG study of costs for 3 top choices for examining RIAs

Topic Enhanced SEC FINRA New IA SRO
Annual cost per RIA $11,300-$27,300* $51,700 $57,400
Set-up costs $6m-$8m (Increasing OCIE) $200m-$255m $255m-$310m
Set-up time 6-12 months 12-18 months 18-24 months
Mandate costs from fees $100m-$270m $460m-$510m $515m-$565m
SEC Oversight of SRO $0 $90m-$100m $95m-$105m
Total annual costs $100m-$270m $550m-$610m $610m-$670m

The study provides some interesting insight as to staffing. The average examiner productivity is assumed to be 3.0 examinations per examiner per year, based on the five year SEC average of 3.0 IA examinations per examiner per year.31 In order to achieve an average examination frequency of once every four years, with examiner productivity of 3.0 examinations per examiner per year, 787 examiners are required.

The parties who requested the study are the Investment Adviser Association, Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, the Financial Planning Association, the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors and TD Ameritrade Institutional in commissioning the study.Given that the vast majority of investment adviser firms do not want FINRA as their regulator/examiner it should come as no surprise as to the results of the study.

I expected to see the additional costs of SEC oversight of an SRO. It’s a bit unfair that the SEC costs are only for examination and not enforcement. The SRO figures include that additional cost.

It should also come as no surprise that FINRA disputed the findings. Rumor has it that they are pushing hard to become the SRO for investment advisers.

In any event, it will take legislation from Congress to implement any of these scenarios. The typical Congressman’s knee-jerk reaction to this seems to be “Madoff.” That does not bode well for increased resources for the SEC.

Sources:

Rudy – Securities Fraud

Who cares how much effort I put in, if it doesn’t produce any results.

In a sad turn of event, Daniel “Rudy” Ruettinger was charged by the SEC with securities fraud. Ruettiger and 10 of the scheme’s other participants have agreed to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations. (I guess they can still do that if you’re not in front of Judge Rakoff.)

I guess he thought his effort was better spent pumping up the stock of the penny-stock company that ran his sport drink company. I guess I have to cross Rudy off the list of inspirational sports movies to show my kids.

Sources:

Compliance Bits & Pieces for December 16

These are some compliance related stories that caught my attention:

Dodd-Frank Rules Will Crush Employment, Banks Warn by Paul Sperry for Investors Business Daily

Job-killing bank regulations threaten to wipe out all the gains in private-sector employment since the recovery began, the industry warns. Washington, however, is hiring thousands more bureaucrats to enforce the rules. Signed into law last year, the Dodd-Frank Act is the biggest rewrite of financial regulations since the New Deal. It was intended to rein in Wall Street “excesses.” But the banking industry says burdensome red tape is hurting economic growth and jobs in a still-sluggish labor market.

The SEC’s Plan of Operations In the Event of a Government Shutdown by Vanessa Schoenthaler in 100 F Street

Faced, yet again, with the possibility of a government shutdown (tomorrow at midnight), the Securities and Exchange Commission has published its latest Plan of Operations During a Lapse in Appropriations.

SEC Reform After Dodd-Frank and the Financial Crisis by Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher

The Dodd-Frank Act presented an opportunity to make changes that could have served the U.S. capital markets very well. Indeed, the 2,319 pages of legislation were meant to address the problems associated with the Financial Crisis. It was both expected and necessary that Congress respond to those events. Although the full impact of the legislation will not be known for years as regulators toil on the implementation of the Act, it is becoming clear that the SEC will need to focus on a number of issues within the Commission’s core competencies that were not addressed in the legislation.

Feds Probe Richardson For Alleged Pay-To-Play Scheme by in the Christopher Matthews WSJ.com’s Corruption Currents

A federal grand jury in Albuquerque has been looking into “pay to play” complaints from former and current state officials, people familiar with the matter told the Journal. The officials contend in court filings and interviews that Richardson’s close allies steered more than $2 billion of public money into investment funds run by money managers who in turn agreed to pay millions of dollars in consulting fees to high-profile Democratic fund-raisers and other supporters of Richardson.

FCPA Conviction Upheld

There are few court cases involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Most of those accused quickly settle and move on. With few court cases that means the appellate decisions helping to interpret the FCPA are rare. Yesterday we had one of those rare sightings.

Frederic Bourke was convicted of FCPA violations in 2009. Bourke co-founded the fashion accessory company Dooney & Bourke, but considers himself an inventor, investor and philanthropist. Unfortunately he fell into business with Viktor Kozeny, the Pirate of Prague. The government charged Kozeny and Bourke with conspiring in a scheme to illegally purchase the state-owned oil company of Azerbaijan, SOCAR, by bribing the Azerbaijani president and other government officials.

Bourke’s main defense to the charges was that he did not have explicit knowledge of the bribery.  The government took the position that Bourke had “conscious avoidance”.

Under those circumstances, a jury might conclude that no actual knowledge existed but might nonetheless convict, if it believed that the defendant had not tried hard enough to learn the truth.

However, the government had some statements from Bourke stepping around the bribery issue. Unfortunately, Bourke also got some advice from his attorney “that if Bourke thought there might be bribes paid, Bourke could not just look the other way.” That was in 1999 and before the current era of FCPA enforcement. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an attorney who make that statement today. The Sergeant Schultz defense does not work any more when it comes to bribery.

Sources:

Compliance and the South Pole

We reckoned now that we were at the Pole. Of course, every one of us knew that we were not standing on the absolute spot; it would be an impossibility with the time and the instruments at our disposal to ascertain that exact spot. But we were so near it that the few miles which possibly separated us from it could not be of the slightest importance. 

Roald Amundsen – December 14, 1911

The South Pole is a harsh and isolated environment. It’s bit more plush now that when man first stepped on the location 100 year ago. Amundsen slept in a small tent. Today visitors can take it a bit easier in the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. You can even see a picture of the day from the South Pole.

At least during the Antarctic summer when the average high is a balmy -15°F with near endless daytime. From mid-April to mid-August, the only natural light comes from the moon and the aurora australis. Those settled in for the Antarctic winter don’t see the sun for months and the average high drops to a bone-chiling -68°F

The current station is on jacks so it can battle the 8 inches of snow that accumulates each year by raising its elevation. Since it’s sitting on a moving glacier it moves about 10 meters each year. It’s in constant movement, battling the forces of nature that kept in uninhabited until modern technology was able to fight back against the elements.

There are many comparisons you can draw between the South Pole and a compliance program.  I’ll let you draw your own.

 

I’m an NFL Owner

Sort of.

The Green Bay Packers want to expand Lambeau Field by 6,700 seats, add new gates and new video boards. To finance the improvements, the team ownership decided to sell additional stock in the ownership corporation. Since the Kraft family is unlikely to be selling the Patriots anytime soon, I was willing to part with some football loyalty and some cash to get my own piece of the NFL pie.

Unlike the rest of the National Football League franchises, the Green Bay Packers franchise is owned by non-profit, community-based organization, Green Bay Packers, Inc. The corporation is required to be nonprofit sharing and that no shareholder may receive any dividend or pecuniary profit by virtue of being a shareholder in the corporation. Any increase in value or operating profits and any proceeds upon liquidation of the corporation will go to community programs, charitable causes or other similar causes. If you add in limitations in stock ownership and transfer restrictions, it’s virtually impossible for anyone to recoup the amount initially paid to acquire the stock. That makes it a completely non-economic investment.

Is it a security?

Here is what the offering document says:

Because the Corporation believes Common Stock is not considered “stock” for securities laws purposes, it believes offerees and purchasers of Common Stock will not receive the protection of federal, state or international securities laws with respect to the offering or sale of Common Stock. In particular, Common Stock will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state or international securities laws. The Common Stock will not be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission or any state or international regulatory authority nor will the
Securities and Exchange Commission or any state or international regulatory authority approve the Offering or the terms of the Offering.

Under the Howey definition of an investment contract, you need (1) a common enterprise and (2) to depend “solely” for its success on the efforts of others. Certainly, the Packers’ stock meets those two prongs. The third prong is an expectation of profits. That is not true. However the definition of “security” in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 includes “any note, stock, treasury stock…” The interests in the Packers are clearly stock and seem to fall into the definition of security.

What do you get?

A certificate:

The certificate is designed in the timeless tradition of classic stock certificates. The 12 inch by 8 inch certificate is printed on exquisite paper using a classic engraved steel plate process. It features an artistic representation of heritage. The record of your ownership will be secure, and you will be able to display your ownership with pride.

Is this Crowdfunding?

This is the current state of crowdfunding. You can’t offer securities without going through the registration process or finding an exemption. But you can still raise funds from a large group of people. Just don’t offer a share of the profits or stock. That’s how the kickstarter crowdfunding platform works. You get an over-priced product or a t-shirt or some other token of appreciation. As a backer, you do not have visions of early retirement because you just bought a piece of ownership in a multi-million dollar idea.

A Packers’ alternative would be to have merely offered a certificate of appreciation or tufts of grass from Lambeau field. But they offered the ability to say “I’m an NFL owner.”

I’m supporting a multi-million dollar idea. On Any Given Sunday, any team in the NFL can beat another. A team from tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin can still generate the revenue to field a competitive team and win the Super-Bowl.

I still prefer that the Patriots win the Super Bowl.

Sources: