Tag: Goldstein v. SEC

Fund Manager Fraud for Exceeding Leverage Limits

It turns out that failing to adhere to your investment guidelines can not only get you sued by your investor, it can get you sent to jail.

Mark D. Lay ran a hedge fund whose sole investor was the Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation. The fund agreement had a non-binding 150% leverage guideline. Lay apparently relied on the non-binding nature of it and had 2/3 of the trades in excess of 150 leverage and over 20% of those trades involved leverage over 1000%. Lay ended up losing $214 million of the $225 million invested by the Bureau.

Apparently Lay not only greatly exceeded the leverage guidelines, he also lied about his excess.

Lay was convicted investment advisory fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and two counts of mail fraud. Those convictions earned him a 12-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, N.J. and an order to repay nearly $213 million from the loss and forfeit $590,526 of the $1.7 million in fees the bureau paid.

Lay lawyers tried get him out of the investment advisory fraud by claiming that the Bureau was not a client. They argued that the Bureau was merely an investor in the fund and that Lay advised the fund. It was this handling of deeming an investor in the fund as the “client” that caught my attention.

Lay’s legal team used the Goldstein v. SEC case to argue that the SEC is precluded form treating fund investors as clients. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did agree with that argument. The found that the SEC could not treat all investors in a fund as clients, but they could treat some as clients under the Investment Advisers Act.

In this case, the Bureau was already a client under a different investment management agreement. So a client relationship was already established. Also, the Bureau was the only investor in the fund. This is an atypical fund relationship.

The case points out that investors in a fund may still be clients of the fund manager under the Investment Advisers Act.

Sources:

Counting Clients under the Investment Advisers Act

With the demise of The Hedge Fund Rule, you can look to Rule 203(b)(3)-1 to help you figure out how to count clients.  The key part of the rule from a private investment fund perspective is (a)(2)(i):

A corporation, general partnership,limited partnership, limited liability company, trust (other than a trust referred to in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section), or other legal organization (any of which are referred to hereinafter as a “legal organization”) to which you provide investment advice based on its investment objectives rather than the individual investment objectives of its shareholders, partners, limited partners, members, or beneficiaries (any of which are referred to hereinafter as an “owner”)

This rule is the opposite of The Hedge Fund Rule. Here the entity is the client, not the individuals or organizations in the entity.

For a private investment fund, the limited partnership is the client, not the invidiual limited partners.

Counting Clients under the Investment Advisers Act – The Demise of the Hedge Fund Rule

Section 203(b) lays out the exceptions to registration under the Investment Advisers Act. Section 203(b)(3) exempts you if during the previous 12 months (i) you have fewer than 15 clients and (ii) you do not hold yourself out as an investment adviser.

For private investment funds, the general partner is generally considered an investment adviser [See: Abrahamson v. Fleschner, 568 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1977) , overruled in part on other grounds by Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979)]

In the private investment world, as long as you had fewer than 15 funds and did not hold yourself out as an investment adviser you did not have to register.  The question is what was a fund/client for the purposes of the Investment Company Act?

With the demise of Long Term Capital, the SEC was interested in regulating hedge funds. In 2004 the SEC passed the Hedge Fund Rule which tried to expand the scope of the Investment Advisers Act by defining “client” under Section 203(b)(3). The rule specified that for “[f]or purposes of section 203(b)(3) of the [Advisers] Act (15 U.S.C. § 80b-3(b)(3)), you must count as clients the shareholders, limited partners, members, or beneficiaries . . . of [the] fund.” § 275.203(b)(3)-2(a). Effectively, the SEC tried to shift the definition from the fund up to the investors in the fund.

This Hedge Fund Rule was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the appelate case of Goldstein v. SEC, 451 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

“An investor in a private fund may benefit from the adviser’s advice (or he may suffer from it) but he does not receive the advice directly. He invests a portion of his assets in the fund. The fund manager – the adviser – controls the disposition of the pool of capital in the fund. The adviser does not tell the investor how to spend his money; the investor made that decision when he  invested in the fund. Having bought into the fund, the investor fades into the background; his role is completely passive. If the person or entity controlling the fund is not an “investment adviser” to each individual investor, then a fortiori each investor cannot be a “client” of that person or entity.”