Tag: IA-2910

SEC Votes on Pay to Play

At Wednesday’s Open Meeting the Securities and Exchange Commission took up the discussion of their proposed rules on pay-to-play for investment advisers. The proposal is a new Rule 206 (4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act. The Commission voted unanimously to adopt the rule.

The rule will have three main prongs:

Two Year Time-Out

An investment adviser who makes a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser would be barred for two years from providing advisory services for compensation, either directly or through a fund.

There will be two de minimis exceptions. For an official the person can vote for, you can contribute up to $300 350. That exception is lowered to $150 if you are not entitled to vote for the official.

There is a limited ability to get a return of a political contribution for inadvertent violations. It sounds like this will be difficult.

There was a mention that the political contributions limitation may not affect all employees of an investment adviser.

Coordination

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser from coordinating, or asking another person or political action committee to:

  1. Make a contribution to an elected official (or candidate) who can influence the selection of the adviser.
  2. Make a payment to a political party of the state or locality where the adviser is seeking to provide advisory services to the government.

The SEC does not want investment advisers to be gatekeepers or aggregaters for political contributions to elected officials who select investment advisers for government funds.

Placement Agents and Solicitors

The third prong would prohibit advisers from hiring third party persons to act as agents or solicitors for an investment adviser unless the third party is a regulated person subject to pay-to-play regulation similar to this rule. The placement agents will need to a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer.

The comments to the flat ban resulted in the most comments to the rule. This is the biggest change to the final rule will vary from proposed rule.

They are going to keep a close eye on placement agents. If there continues to be a problem, the SEC is prepared to put a complete ban in place.

Catch-All

There is a catch-all provision is the rule that prohibits indirect violation of the rules.

Applicability

Rule 206 (4)-5 will apply to registered investment advisers and unregistered investment advisers who are relying on the small adviser exception to registration. (Of course, that exception is likely to be eliminated shortly as part of the financial reform legislation.) Private equity fund managers and their employees will be subject to this rule.

There will be a one year period before the placement agent limitations are effective. This is designed to give FINRA time to enact its new regulations on pay-to-play.  It’s not clear if the one-year period is applicable for the other parts of Rule 206 (4)-5.

First Amendment

Commissioner Casey raised a concern that the rule not violate the first amendment rights to engage in the political process. She thought the rule struck a good balance. Commissioner Parades was concerned about rogue employees making contributions in violation of the policy.

Full Text

As is typical with the SEC rules, the final text of Rule 206 (4)-5 was not released at the time of the vote. Keep an eye out for the final release and its detailed requirements.

Sources:

SEC’s Rule on Pay to Play is Coming

It’s been almost a year, but it looks like the SEC is ready to issue its rule on political contributions by investment advisers. They announced the subject matter for the Wednesday June 30 10:00 am open meeting:

The Commission will consider whether to adopt a new rule and related rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to address “pay to play” practices by investment advisers. The new rule is designed to prohibit advisers from seeking to influence the award of advisory contracts by public entities by making or soliciting political contributions to or for those officials who are in a position to influence the awards.

Since private equity funds will have to register as investment advisers, the rule will be applicable.  Actually, the proposed rule was drafted to be applicable to registered investment advisers or those unregistered in reliance on the exemption under Section 203(b)(3), so it would have been applicable to most private equity funds anyhow.

Back in April, the SEC engaged FINRA to craft rules for registered broker-dealers when acting as a placement agent soliciting investments from government investors. That would make it likely that placement agents will not be banned, but merely subject to some additional regulatory requirements.

The proposed rule limited political contributions to $250 per election per candidate if the contributor is entitled to vote for the candidate. Otherwise, the investment adviser would be subject to a two-year ban on providing advisory services for compensation to that government investor.

Private equity firms gearing up for registration will need to include a policy on political contributions. Next week we will not what need to be in that policy.

Sources:

FINRA and Placement Agents

Will FINRA step in to prevent a ban on placement agents working with government investors?

You may remember that last August, the SEC published a proposed rule that would create a prohibition on paying a third party, such as a placement agent, to solicit a government client on behalf of the investment adviser: IA-2910. The rule has generated lots of comments. The intent of the proposed rule is to prevent “pay-to-play” scandals. A noble and worthy goal.

The SEC seems to be softening its position on the placement agent ban. In a December 18 letter, the SEC asked FINRA if they would interested in crafting some rules for registered broker-dealers in dealing with government investors. Legitimate placement agents (such as FINRA-registered broker-dealers) “could be subject to separate regulations that might restrict their ability to engage in pay to play activities on behalf of their investment adviser clients.”

It took three months, but FINRA responded to the SEC with a “yes“.

“I am delighted to state that we are in a position to promulgate such a rule. We believe that the FINRA proposal should impose regulatory requirements on member broker-dealer placement agents as rigorous and as expansive as would be imposed by the SEC on investment advisers. We believe that a regulatory scheme targeting improper pay to play practices by broker-dealers acting on behalf of investment advisers is both a viable solution to a ban on certain private placement agents serving a legitimate function.”

It sounds like SEC is getting closer on making a decision about its pay to play rule. Perhaps the FINRA rule will make it easier to deal with.

In the interest of disclosure, my company uses placement agents in its dealings with investors, including government investors.

Sources:

Schwarzman Stands up for Placement Agents

blackstone

“Eliminating placement agents as a group because there were a few bad actors who have tarnished the industry is analogous to eliminating Major League Baseball because several of its players behaved illegally.”

Steven Schwarzman, The Blackstone Group’s chairman and chief executive, has submitted a comment letter on the SEC’s proposed ban on placement agents interacting with public pensions.  He comes squarely down on the side of placement agents. In fact, he credits placement agents with being essential to his fund-raising success.

The proposed SEC rule is fallout from investigations by the SEC and the New York District Attorney into a pay-to-play scandal involving “fixers” and prior scandal in New Mexico

References:

Reasons Why the SEC Wants to Regulate Political Contributions

sec-seal

The SEC has proposed a New Rule on Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers to prevent advisers from participating in pay to play practices affecting the management of public pension plans. They had proposed a similar rule in 1999. Many of the comments to that rule said that pay to play was not a problem in the management of public funds.

Now, the SEC thinks that pay to play is a significant problem in the management of public funds by investment advisers. In recent years, the SEC and criminal authorities have brought a number of actions charging investment advisers with participating in pay to play schemes. Here are some of the incidents they cite in the proposed pay to play rule. http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2009/ia-2910.pdf

Alabama

  • The SEC brought a case against the mayor of Birmingham and other defendants, alleging that while the mayor served as president of the County Commission of Jefferson County, he accepted undisclosed cash and benefits through a lobbyist as a conduit from the chairman of a Montgomery, Alabama-based broker-dealer, in return for awarding municipal bond business and swap transactions to the broker-dealer. See SEC v. Larry P. Langford et al., Litigation Release No. 20545 (Apr. 30, 2008).

California

Connecticut

  • Paul J. Silvester, the former Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, agreed to invest $200 million of state pension funds in return for the investment adviser providing consulting contracts valued at approximately $1 million each to two of his friends.SEC v. Paul J. Silvester et al., Litigation Release No. 16759 (Oct. 10, 2000); Litigation Release No. 20027 (Mar. 2, 2007); Litigation Release No. 19583 (Mar. 1, 2006); Litigation Release No. 18461 (Nov. 17, 2003); Litigation Release No. 16834 (Dec. 19, 2000);
  • Sanctions against William A. DiBella, the former Majority Leader of the Connecticut State Senate, and his consulting firm, North Cove Ventures, L.L.C. for their roles in aiding and abetting then Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, Paul J. Silvester in a fraudulent investment scheme.SEC v. William A. DiBella et al., Litigation Release No. 20498 (Mar. 14, 2008). See also
  • A judgment against Ben F. Andrews, Jr. in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving the investment of Connecticut state pension fund money. U.S.. v. Ben F. Andrews, Litigation Release No. 19566 (Feb. 15, 2006);
  • In November 1998, the then-Connecticut Treasurer invested $75 million of the Connecticut state pension fund with Thayer IV. In connection with this investment, Thayer, through Malek, agreed to hire a consultant at the Treasurer’s request. This consultant, who was paid nearly $375,000 by TC Management IV, had no previous involvement with the proposed investment and ultimately performed no meaningful work on the deal. In the Matter of Thayer Capital Partners, TC Equity Partners IV, L.L.C., TC Management Partners IV, L.L.C., and Frederick V. Malek, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2276 (Aug. 12, 2004);
  • The principal of an investment adviser provided $2 million in consulting contracts to associates of the Connecticut State Treasurer to secure the decision to invest $200 million in state pension funds in his funds. In the Matter of Frederick W. McCarthy, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2218 (Mar. 5, 2004);
  • An aide to the Connecticut State Treasurer received a $1 million consulting contract from an investment adviser with whom the Treasurer had invested $200 million in Connecticut state pension funds. In the Matter of Lisa A. Thiesfield, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2186 (Oct. 29, 2003).
  • The indictment of the former mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in connection with his conviction for, among other things, requiring payment from an investment adviser in return for city business. U.S. v. Joseph P. Ganim, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29367 (2d Cir. 2007)

Florida

  • A partner at Lazard Freres & Co. was found liable for conspiracy and wire fraud for fraudulently paying $40,000 through an intermediary to Fulton County’s independent financial adviser to secure an assurance that Lazard would be selected for the Fulton County underwriting contract. United States v. Poirier, 321 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., deVegter v. United States, 540 U.S. 874 (2003)

Georgia

  • A broker-dealer, two of its officers and a city official were involved in a scheme to defraud the City of Atlanta in connection with the purchase and sale of certain securities while providing substantial, undisclosed monetary benefits to the city’s investment officer who was authorized to select a broker-dealer for the transactions. See In the Matter of Pryor, McClendon, Counts & Co., Inc. et al., Securities Act Release No. 7673 (Apr. 29, 1999); Securities Act Release No. 8062 (Feb. 6, 2002); Exchange Act Release No. 48095 (June 26, 2003); Securities Act Release No. 8245 (June 26, 2003); Securities Act Release No. 8246 (June 26, 2003).

Illinois

New Mexico

  • An investment adviser was barred from association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser for paying kickbacks to the Treasurer of the State of New Mexico. In the Matter of Kent D. Nelson, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2765 (Aug. 1, 2008);  I
  • Conviction of the former treasurer of New Mexico for requiring that a friend be hired by an investment manager in return for accepting a proposal from the manager for government business.
  • Conviction for attempted extortion of the former treasurer of New Mexico’s successor for requiring that a friend be hired by an investment manager at a high salary in return for the former treasurer’s willingness to accept a proposal from the manager for government businessU.S. v. Vigil, 523 F. 3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008)

New York

  • The deputy comptroller and a “placement agent” engaged in corruption and securities fraud for selling access to management of public funds in return for kickbacks and other payments for personal and political gain. SEC v. Henry Morris, et al, Litigation Release No. 21036 (May 12, 2009).

North Carolina

  • Alleged pay to play activities involving North Carolina’s state treasurer. Moore Defends Pension System, by Rick Rothacker & David Ingram for the Charlotte Observer (Feb. 25, 2007) (discussing )

Ohio

  • Reginald Fields, Four More Convicted in Pension Case: Ex-Board Members Took Gifts from Firm, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER (Sept. 20, 2006) (addressing pay to play activities of members of the Ohio Teachers Retirement System).

Pennsylvania

That is a big list of bad behavior is short period of time.

Maybe the SEC has a point.

Although I am not sure if the proposed SEC rule will stop it.

New SEC Rule on Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers

sec-seal

The SEC has just published the text of the proposed rule on political contributions by investment advisers. SEC voted unanimously to propose this rule at its July 22nd Open Meeting.

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2009/ia-2910.pdf

The proposed rule is intended to curtail “pay to play” practices by investment advisers that seek to manage money for state and local governments.

The new proposed rule has four primary aspects:

1. Restricting Political Contributions

An investment adviser who makes a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser would be barred for two years from providing advisory services for compensation, either directly or through a fund.

The contribution prohibition would also apply to certain executives and employees of the  investment adviser.

Additionally, the range of restricted officials would include political incumbents and candidates for a position that can influence the selection of an adviser.

There is a de minimis exception that permits contributions of up to $250 per election per candidate if the contributor is entitled to vote for the candidate.

2. Banning Solicitation of Contributions

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser from coordinating, or asking another person or political action committee to:

  1. Make a contribution to an elected official (or candidate) who can influence the selection of the adviser.
  2. Make a payment to a political party of the state or locality where the adviser is seeking to provide advisory services to the government.

3. Restricting Indirect Contributions and Solicitations

There would be prohibition on engaging in pay to play conduct indirectly, if that conduct would violate the rule if the adviser did it directly. That would include directing or funding contributions through third parties such as spouses, lawyers or companies affiliated with the adviser.

4. Banning Third-Party Solicitors

There is prohibition on paying a third party, such as a placement agent, to solicit a government client on behalf of the investment adviser.