Monthly Archives: September 2009

NFA Rule Compliance Rule 2-45 Approved

CPOs Prohibited From Taking Loans From Commodity Hedge Funds

The CFTC just recently approved a new NFA compliance rule which prohibits commodity pool operators (CPOs) from taking loans from the commodity pools which they manage. Additionally, if a CPO currently has some sort of a loan arrangement with their fund, such CPO will have until October 22, 2009 to notify the NFA of the arrangement and surrounding facts and circumstances.

With regard to this new rule, we urge CPOs to take the following notes:

  • If you currently have a loan arrangement with your fund, please contact an attorney immediately. If you have such an arrangement and do not disclose this to the NFA within the allowed time frame, you will be subject to significant action in the future if it is found that you did not comply with this requirement.
  • CPOs should think about updating their commodity pool offering documents to include a discussion of this new prohibition (if it is not already discussed in the pool offering documents).
  • CPOs should update their compliance manuals and procedures to specifically address this issue – it is likely that this will be a specific examination item in the near future and a well prepared CPO should have procedures in place to ensure compliance.

Below we have reprinted the notice announcing the new rule as well as the interpretive release which provides color on the new rule. If you have any questions on this new rule and its applicability to you CPO or your commodity pool, please contact us.  Related article:

****

Notice I-09-17

September 22, 2009

Effective Date of NFA Requirements Prohibiting Loans by Commodity Pools to CPOs and Related Entities

NFA has received notice that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has approved new NFA Compliance Rule 2-45. This Rule and its accompanying Interpretive Notice, which both became effective September 11, 2009, prohibit commodity pools from making direct or indirect loans or advances of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

CPOs that currently have existing loan or advance arrangements between their pools and the CPO, the CPO’s principals, or related entities must notify NFA of these arrangements by October 22, 2009. The written notification to NFA should describe the reason for the loan or advance; indicate the interest the CPO is paying, if any; provide evidence that the loan or advance is secured by marketable, liquid assets; explain arrangements the CPO has made to pay back the loan or advance, if any; and include an executed copy of the loan or advance agreement. In addition, the CPO must provide NFA with written evidence that pool participants were informed about the loan or advance through a disclosure contained in the disclosure document, offering memorandum or other correspondence.

NFA will review the information provided to ensure, among other things, that participants received a full disclosure of the arrangements and that the loans and advances are secured by marketable liquid assets. Depending on the results of the review, NFA will determine if a CPO needs to take any additional steps regarding a particular loan or advance. NFA may also recommend disciplinary action if warranted by our review of the circumstances.

More information about NFA Compliance Rule 2-45, and the accompanying Interpretive Notice, can be found in NFA’s August 26, 2009 Submission Letter to the CFTC. Questions concerning these changes should be directed to Mary McHenry, Senior Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1420) or Tracey Hunt, Senior Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1284).

****

August 26, 2009

Via Federal Express

Mr. David A. Stawick
Office of the Secretariat
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20581

Re: National Futures Association: Prohibition of Loans by Pools to Commodity Pool Operators and Related Parties – Proposed Adoption of Compliance Rule 2-45 and Interpretive Notice*

Dear Mr. Stawick:

On May 27, 2009, National Futures Association (“NFA”) submitted proposed new Compliance Rule 2-45 to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) for its review and approval. NFA hereby withdraws that submission and, pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, hereby resubmits the proposed Compliance Rule 2-45 and related Interpretive regarding prohibition of loans by pools to CPOs and related parties.

Compliance Rule 2-45 was approved by NFA’s Board of Directors (“Board”) on May 21, 2009, and the Interpretive Notice was approved by the Board on August 20, 2009. NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and will make these proposals effective ten days after receipt of this submission by the Commission unless the Commission notifies NFA that the Commission has determined to review the proposals for approval.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
(additions are underscored)
COMPLIANCE RULES

* * *
PART 2 – RULES GOVERNING THE BUSINESS CONDUCT OF MEMBERS REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION
* * *

RULE 2-45. PROHIBITION OF LOANS BY COMMODITY POOLS TO CPOS AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

No Member CPO may permit a commodity pool to use any means to make a direct or indirect loan or advance of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

* * *
INTERPRETIVE NOTICES
* * *

COMPLIANCE RULE 2-45: PROHIBITION OF LOANS BY COMMODITY POOLS TO CPOS AND RELATED ENTITIES

NFA has recently taken a number of Member Responsibility Actions (MRAs) against commodity pool operators (CPOs) and CPO principals who directly or indirectly loaned or advanced pool assets to themselves or an affiliated person or entity. Many of these arrangements were used by these principals to purchase luxury items, while others went to related entities that did not have sufficient assets to repay the loans. In each case, the transaction resulted in significant losses to participants’ funds.

The Board of Directors has determined that direct or indirect loans or advances from pools to their CPOs, the CPO’s principals, or related entities should be prohibited. Therefore, NFA Compliance Rule 2-45 prohibits CPOs from permitting a commodity pool to use any means to make a direct or indirect loan or advance of pool assets to the CPO or any other affiliated person or entity.

NFA understands that a few pools may have made these types of loan or advance arrangements prior to Compliance Rule 2-45’s effective date. These CPOs are required to notify NFA of these existing arrangements within thirty (30) days of Compliance Rule 2-45’s effective date.

These arrangements violate NFA’s existing compliance rules if the arrangements are not consistent with the pool’s current disclosure document or offering materials and both the loan(s) or advance(s) and the conflict of interest are not fully disclosed to participants. Existing arrangements also violate NFA’s rules if the loan or advance is not secured by marketable, liquid assets (e.g. a CPO participant’s pro-rata interest in the pool’s liquid assets) and, therefore, the arrangement could have a material effect upon the pool’s ability to meet its obligations to participants.

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

In February, NFA took two Member Responsibility Actions (“MRAs”) against three NFA Member commodity pool operators (“CPOs”). Although the basis of both MRAs was the CPOs’ failure to cooperate with NFA in an investigation, the limited investigation that NFA was able to perform revealed that the CPOs had misappropriated pool funds through improper loans from pools to the CPOs or related entities. The CFTC charged all three of the CPOs with misappropriating pool assets through improper loans, and all three were charged criminally with fraud.

These two matters are not the first instances of CPOs misappropriating pool participant funds through direct or indirect loans from a pool to the CPO or a related entity. Over the years, there have been a number of regulatory actions involving this type of fraud. Given the significant losses suffered by pool participants as a result of these improper loans, NFA is proposing to prohibit direct or indirect loans from commodity pools to the CPO or any affiliated person or entity.

NFA staff discussed this matter with NFA’s CPO/CTA Advisory Committee, which supported prohibiting loans because it believes that absent extraordinary circumstances there is no legitimate reason for a pool to make a direct or indirect loan to its CPO or a related party.

At its May 2009 meeting, the Board approved Compliance Rule 2-45. Although the rule provides for a complete prohibition, the Board was somewhat concerned that there might be some unforeseen very limited circumstances where a carve-out to this prohibition would be appropriate. As a result, the Board instructed staff to handle these situations on a case-by-case basis, with the CPO seeking no-action relief from NFA.

After NFA submitted the proposed rule to the Commission for approval, Commission staff informed NFA that although they supported the overall concept, they had concerns regarding NFA’s granting of no-action relief. In light of the Commission’s concerns and the fact that there are few, if any, foreseeable situations in which NFA should permit a loan arrangement, the Board reconsidered its original position regarding no-action relief.

Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that there are a few loan arrangements currently in place that have been fully disclosed and are adequately collateralized. Therefore, the Interpretive Notice provides that CPOs will not be required to immediately sell other assets to repay these existing loans. CPOs will, however, be required to notify NFA of any such current arrangements within 30 days of Compliance Rule 2-45’s effective date. NFA will review these arrangements to ensure, among other things, that participants were provided with full disclosure of the arrangements and that the loans are secured by marketable, liquid assets. Moreover, as NFA has done in several recent MRAs, we will not hesitate to recommend disciplinary action if we find those loans involve fraud, inadequate disclosure or are not properly collateralized.

As mentioned earlier, NFA is invoking the “ten-day” provision of Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act. NFA intends to make proposed Compliance Rule 2-45 and the related Interpretive Notice regarding the prohibition of loans by pools to CPOs and related parties effective ten days after receipt of this submission by the Commission, unless the Commission notifies NFA that the Commission has determined to review the proposal for approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas W. Sexton
Senior Vice President and
General Counsel
_________
* The proposed adoption of Compliance Rule 2-45 and Interpretive Notice became effective September 11, 2009.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about the CPO or CTA registration process, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

IA Compliance Fall Conference 2009

Over the past few months I have written extensively about the new regulatory environment and the likelihood that many hedge fund managers will need to register with the SEC within the next year or so (assuming that Congress passes one of many proposed registration bills).  Anticipating this requirement, my team and I at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP have been preparing for registrations and as part of that preparation I am attending the IA Compliance Fall Conference today at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel.

The conferne is designed to provide lawyers and compliance professionals with more context on how firms need to deal with compliance issues in this hype-sensitive environment.  Today’s conference hosts a number of renowned speakers, including top SEC officials:

  • John Walsh – SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspectrions and Examinations
  • Gene Gohlke – OCIE’s Associate Director
  • Andrew Donohue – director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management

There are a number of items on the adgenda which I am particularly excited to hear about and discuss with my colleagues including some of the hot-button issues and recent reports from SEC examinations.  I will be taking notes throughout the event and will be writing blog posts about the conference in the coming days.  I will also be providing more information on Mallon P.C.’s investment adviser registration and compliance services for hedge fund managers.

Other attendees include representatives from: The Carlyle Group; Westover Capital Advisors, LLC; Oppenheimer Funds, Inc; State Street; Penbrook Management, LLC; Trilogy Capital; Bridgewater Associates; AXA Investment Managers; Strategic Value Partners, LLC; Pershing Square Capital Management; Guggenheim Advisors, LLC; Lone Pine Capital; Parkway Advisors; Vicis Capital LLC; The Swathmore Group; Abbott Capital Management, LLC; Redwood Investments; Tocqueville Asset Management; RNK Capital LLC among others.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Section 13(d) Filings and Section 13(g) Filings

Section 13(d) of the Securities Act of 1934 requires any person who beneficially owns 5% or more of a class of equity securities of a publicly traded company to file a report with the SEC within 10 days of reaching the 5% ownership threshold.  SEC Rule 13d-1 provides more detailed guidance on the reporting requirements.

Generally those persons who are subject to this rule will need to file a Schedule 13D (discussed in greater detail below) with the SEC.  Because Schedule 13D is fairly detailed (the SEC estimates that it will take 14.5 hours to complete the form), the SEC has provided an alternate form and alternate reporting procedures for those persons who acquire 5% but who are generally not purchasing the securities with the purpose nor with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer.

Schedule 13D

The following discussion is from the SEC website and can be found here.

Schedule 13D is commonly referred to as a “beneficial ownership report.” The term “beneficial owner” is defined under SEC rules. It includes any person who directly or indirectly shares voting power or investment power (the power to sell the security).

When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC. (Depending upon the facts and circumstances, the person or group of persons may be eligible to file the more abbreviated Schedule 13G in lieu of Schedule 13D.)

Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. The schedule is filed with the SEC and is provided to the company that issued the securities and each exchange where the security is traded. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment. The schedule is often filed in connection with a tender offer.

You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database. You can learn how to use EDGAR to find information about companies. You can find an HTML version of the Schedule and download a PDF version for easier printing.

Schedule 13G Filing Categories

As discussed above, there is an alternative to the Schedule D filing requirement if the hedge fund manager falls within certain categories desicribed below.  If the manager does fall within these categories, the manager can file the less onerous Schedule 13G.

Rule 13d-1(b) – provides that Schedule G can be filed, in lieu of filing Schedule D, within 45 days of the end of the calendar year in which the 5% threshold was exceeded if: (i) generally the person has not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect of, changing or influencing the control of the issuer and (ii) the person is one of a number of enumerated persons (i.e. broker-dealers, registered investment advisors, investment companies, etc).

Rule 13d-1(c) – provides that Schedule G can be filed, in lieu of filing Schedule D, within 10 days of the date which the 5% threshold was exceeded if: (i) generally the person has not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect of, changing or influencing the control of the issuer; (ii) the person is not a certain enumerated person; and (iii) the person does not directly or indirectly own 20% or more of the class of equity securities.

Rule 13d-1(d) – requires Schedule G be filed within 45 days after the end of the calendar year in which the 5% threshold was exceeded if the person meets certain requirements.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or if you are interested in starting a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about the Schedule D or Schedule G filing process, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Raising Hedge Fund Capital is Not Easy

I have written before that the biggest issue start-up and emerging hedge fund managers face is raising capital for their funds.  I seem to have the same conversation on a weekly basis – the “how to do I grow my fund” conversation.  Unfortunately I do not have the guaranteed step-by-step guide to raising boatloads of capital, but that is not to say that smaller managers cannot raise capital.  I have seen plenty of groups who have made it over the proverbial hump by working ridiculously hard.

The article below (written by Richard Wilson of Hedge Fund Blogger) discusses some ideas that managers will want to consider when developing a program to raise hedge fund capital.  Richard’s group provides consulting services and helps managers to raise money for their hedge funds.

****

This is Bad News: There is NO Magic Bullet
Richard Wilson

The bad news is there is no magic bullet to raising capital. I spoke with at least a dozen managers this past week at our Hedge Fund Premium networking event in Chicago. Most were looking for capital raising help of some type and we discussed many roadblocks that managers are seeing between them and the AUM levels they are trying to achieve.

Our firm provides some capital raising tools, but I believe that daily action and discipline is the best thing that a fund can do to raise capital. They must take responsibility for marketing their fund and have someone reaching out to new investors on a daily basis, if they do not they will forever remain in the bottom 20% of the industry in terms of assets. Very few funds gain their initial assets through a super powerful third party marketing firms, third party marketers like to typically work with managers which have some AUM momentum or foundation underneath them.

To raise capital I believe that managers need to have superior tools and processes when compared to their competitors. This means superior investor cultivation processes in place, superior investor relationships management, superior marketing materials, superior outreach efforts, superior email marketing, and superior focus on investors which actually have the potential of making an investment. Each of those topics mentioned above could be discussed for a whole conference and all of these moving parts need to be in place to compete in today’s industry. While this does not mean you need to out-spend others you do need to strategically plan your marketing campaign.

There is a good quote that I heard which goes something like “If you want to have what others don’t you have to do what others won’t” In other words if you want to grow assets you must put in the extra work, planning, and strategy that others skip over.

Every morning I try to listen to a 45 minute custom MP3 audio session of business lessons, marketing tips and positive thinking notes. One great quote I hear every morning by our friend Brian Tracy, “Successful people dislike to do the same things that unsuccessful people dislike to do, but successful people get them done anyways because that is what they know is the price of success.” This is connected to an interview Brian conducts in which a multi-millionaire says that success is easy, “you must decide exactly what it is you want, and then pay the price to get to that point.”

All of this may sound wishy washy or non-exact but I think it is very important to realize that there is no one single magic bullet for raising capital. It takes hard work, trial and a superior effort on all fronts to stand out from your competition.

Read dozens of additional articles like this within our Marketing & Sales Guide.

– Richard

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Hedge Fund Marketing Materials Designer

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ovis Creative for the wonderful job that they have done on the design of my business cards.  Lauren Colonna, the firm’s Principal/Creative Director, has created marketing materials (including pitchbooks and tearsheets) for some of the largest and most successful hedge funds and alternative assets managers in the industry.  Not only does she approach her projects from a design perspective, but she also is able to provide her clients with more strategic type business advice on their materials as well.

I would recommend Ovis Creative to any hedge fund group who is looking for sharp, professional hedge fund marketing materials.

****

Other related Hedge Fund Law Blog articles:

Investment Adviser Pay to Play Rules

SEC Proposal Would Ban Third Party Solicitors from Seeking Public Monies

Back in July there was much discussion about new “pay to play” rules proposed by the SEC.  The proposed “pay to play” rules would limit the ability of investment managers (including hedge fund managers) to make political contributions and would also limit the ability of third party marketers to raise capital for managers from state and federal pension plans.

There have been many interesting comments on these proposed rules so far, and, as some have noted, it seems to me that these rules may hinder the first-amendment rights of these money managers.  The comment period ends October 6, 2009 and the SEC may choose to vote on the rule thereafter, but I would not expect for any rule to be finalized before the end of this year.  However, hedge fund managers may want to review their investment advisory compliance manual to make sure they have discussed this issue.  Hedge fund managers who are not yet registered with the SEC as investment advisers will likely deal with this issue when they register.

I have included below (i) a definition of pay to play below, (ii) the SEC press release announcing the proposal, and (iii) a discussion of pay to play from 1999, the last time the SEC had a proposal to regulate these activities.

Mallon P.C. will be commenting on the proposal so please let us know your opinions below.

****

Pay to Play Definition (see old SEC release, reprinted below)

When I refer to pay-to-play, I am talking about the practice of requiring, either expressly or implicitly, municipal securities participants to make political contributions to municipal officials in order to be considered for an award of underwriting, advisory, or related business from the municipality. In most cases these practices do not amount to outright bribery – which is already prohibited under state and federal law, since there is no express quid pro quo – but it is simply an understanding that if you don’t give, you don’t get business.

****

SEC Proposes Measures to Curtail “Pay to Play” Practices

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-168

Washington, D.C., July 22, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to propose measures intended to curtail “pay to play” practices by investment advisers that seek to manage money for state and local governments. The measures are designed to prevent an adviser from making political contributions or hidden payments to influence their selection by government officials.

The proposals relate to money managed by state and local governments under important public programs. Such programs include public pension plans that pay retirement benefits to government employees, retirement plans in which teachers and other government employees can invest money for their retirement, and 529 plans that allow families to invest money for college.

To help manage this money, state and local governments often hire outside investment advisers who may directly manage this money and provide advice about which investments they should make. In return for their advice, the investment advisers typically charge fees that come out of the assets of the pension funds for which the advice is provided. If the advisers manage mutual funds or other investments that are options in a plan, the advisers receive fees from the money in those investments.

Investment advisers are often selected by one or more trustees who are appointed by elected officials. While such a selection process is common, fairness can be undermined if advisers seeking to do business with state and local governments make political contributions to elected officials or candidates, hoping to influence the selection process.

The selection process also can be undermined if elected officials or their associates ask advisers for political contributions or otherwise make it understood that only advisers who make contributions will be considered for selection. Hence the term “pay to play.” Advisers and government officials who engage in pay to play practices may try to hide the true purpose of contributions or payments.

“Pay to play practices can result in public plans and their beneficiaries receiving sub-par advisory services at inflated prices,” said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. “Our proposal would significantly curtail the corrupting and distortive influence of pay to play practices.”

Andrew J. Donohue, Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, added, “Pay to play serves the interests of advisers to public pension plans rather than the interests of the millions of pension plan beneficiaries who rely on their advice. The rule we are proposing today would help ensure that advisory contracts are awarded on professional competence, not political influence.”

The rule being proposed for public comment by the SEC includes prohibitions intended to capture not only direct political contributions by advisers, but other ways advisers may engage in pay to play arrangements.

Restricting Political Contributions

Under the proposed rule, 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 rule would apply to the investment adviser as well as certain executives and employees of the adviser. Additionally, the rule would apply to political incumbents as well as candidates for a position that can influence the selection of an adviser.

There is a de minimis provision that permits an executive or employee to make contributions of up to $250 per election per candidate if the contributor is entitled to vote for the candidate.

Banning Solicitation of Contributions

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser and certain of its executives and employees from coordinating, or asking another person or political action committee (PAC) to:
1. Make a contribution to an elected official (or candidate for the official’s position) 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.

Banning Third-Party Solicitors

The proposed rule also would prohibit an adviser and certain of its executives and employees from paying a third party, such as a solicitor or placement agent, to solicit a government client on behalf of the investment adviser.

Restricting Indirect Contributions and Solicitations

Finally, the proposed rule would prohibit an adviser and certain of its executives and employees from engaging in pay to play conduct indirectly, such as by directing or funding contributions through third parties such as spouses, lawyers or companies affiliated with the adviser, if that conduct would violate the rule if the adviser did it directly. This provision would prevent advisers from circumventing the rule by directing or funding contributions through third parties.

* * *

Public comments on today’s proposed rule must be received by the Commission within 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

The full text of the proposed rule will be posted to the SEC Web site as soon as possible.
# # #
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-168.htm

****

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Speech by SEC Staff:
Pay-To-Play and
Public Pension Plans
Remarks of
Robert E. Plaze
Associate Director, Division of Investment Management,
U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission

At the Annual Joint Legislative Meeting of
The National Association of State Retirement Administrators,
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems and
The National Council on Teacher Retirement, Washington, D.C.

January 26, 1999

The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or of the author’s colleagues upon the staff of the Commission.

Thank you for inviting me to address this meeting of the group of state pension administrators. My father was a state retiree and lived on his pension for a number of years. I know how the importance the security of a pension plan is to millions of persons like my Dad, and how important your jobs are.

I am a member of the staff of the Commission. But my remarks this afternoon are my own, and I am not speaking for the Commission or my colleagues on the staff.

When Arthur Levitt became Chairman almost six years ago, among his goals was the reform of the municipal securities markets. Since then, a series of initiatives have improved investor disclosure in the municipal securities markets. A second area of reform – and one most relevant to why you have invited me here today – has been the curbing of pay-to-play practices.

When I refer to pay-to-play, I am talking about the practice of requiring, either expressly or implicitly, municipal securities participants to make political contributions to municipal officials in order to be considered for an award of underwriting, advisory, or related business from the municipality. In most cases these practices do not amount to outright bribery – which is already prohibited under state and federal law, since there is no express quid pro quo – but it is simply an understanding that if you don’t give, you don’t get business.

Chairman Levitt, and several SEC officials have been involved in the municipal securities markets. They knew that pay-to-play practices had been pervasive and corrupting to the market for municipal securities. And if you ask them, they will tell you stories about checks left on the table at a dinner. They may even know the minimum required contributions in a particular jurisdiction to be eligible for public contracts.

Pay-to-play creates the impression that contracts for professional services are awarded on the basis of political influence rather than professional competence. It harms the citizens of the municipality and the investing public asked to purchase the securities. It brings discredit on the businesses and professionals who participate in the practice.

In 1993, the first in a series of steps to end pay-to-play practices began when a group of investment banks voluntarily agreed to swear off making contributions for the purpose of obtaining municipal business. In 1994, the SEC approved MSRB rule G-37 – which is known as the pay-to-play rule.1

G-37 prohibits municipal securities dealers from engaging in the municipal securities business with an issuer two years after contributions are made to an official of an issuer by the dealer or its employees engaged in municipal finance business. The prohibition applies equally to officials who are incumbents and those who are candidates. There is a de minimis exception, which permits contribution of up to $250 to candidates for whom they can vote.

The rule was met with howls of protest from some state and municipal officials. Some argued that it violated their First Amendment rights to make and solicit political contributions. These claims were soon tested in the federal courts, and in an important decision, a federal court of appeals held that G-37 was a constitutionally permissible restraint on free speech – because it serves a compelling governmental interest of rooting out corruption in the market for municipal securities.2

As we meet this afternoon, the American Bar Association is considering proposals to bar the practice of lawyers obtaining business through political contributions. Deans of 47 law schools across the country have joined Chairman Levitt in calling for an end to what the San Francisco Chronicle called “a sleazy practice that costs taxpayers.” 3 We hope that my profession will adopt a strong and effective ban.

Bringing an end to pay-to-play practices thus has been a step-by-step process.

Recently, Chairman Levitt has asked my Division to look into the question of whether the Commission needed to address pay-to-play in the public pension area. We are now in the fact-gathering stage of this project, which could very well lead to a rule proposal.

What have we found? So far, we see strong indicators that pay-to-play can be a powerful force in the selection of money managers of public pension plans. There are public reports of pay-to-pay problems with the management of public money in 12 states – and many of these are the largest states.

* In one small state a former state treasurer raised over $73,000 in campaign contributions, virtually all from contractors for the state retirement system 4

* The controller of a large state has raised $1.8 million from pension fund contractors, many of which are out-of-state 5

* In another state, a former state treasurer raised contributions from contractors, one of whom received a five-fold increase in the custody fees it charged. The treasurer’s candidate lost and the contract was terminated by the new treasurer.6

* The Executive Director of the MSRB has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that “the conflicts of interest in the [public pension business] are as bad as anything we’ve seen in the muni-bond market.7

* An elected state official has told me that she thought that G-37 has resulted in the movement of some pay-to-play activity over to the public pension area. Phone calls from some advisers have confirmed this.

Claims that pay-to-play really isn’t a problem are refuted by the findings of states and plans that have taken on the issue. Vermont and Connecticut have enacted legislation.8 Both were concerned that awards of advisory contracts were being made on the basis of political favoritism rather than expertise. They concluded that even where no actual corruption occurred, the appearance of impropriety was intolerable.

CalPERS has acted in California, and the records of its rulemaking proceeding and subsequent litigation are particularly instructive about how pay-to-play works and its insidiousness.

It is heartening to see some of the plans and jurisdictions putting an end to the culture of pay-to-play. As you know, it takes two to tango, and it takes two to participate in these practices – the payer and the payee. Our concern is with the activities of the payers – investment advisers, whom we regulate under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.9

The Advisers Act imposes a federal fiduciary duty on advisers with respect to their clients and prospective clients.10

* When the process of the selection of an investment adviser is corrupted, the duties of an adviser to his client are compromised.

* When the selection process is corrupted and advisers are selected based not on their merit but on the amount or their political contributions, the ultimate clients of advisers – the pension pools they manage – are harmed and the benefits of retirees threatened.

A similar harm occurs when advisers are not chosen because they have not made the requisite amount of contributions.

We at the Commission believe that G-37 is working pretty well. And I have to believe, based on the evidence we have collected so far, that the burden will fall on those who argue that the Commission should not apply the core principles of G-37 to investment advisers and the public pension plan area.

We have spoken with your representatives from NASRA, and we have discussed the matter with some of your colleagues. They have described the difficult position in which a professional manager is placed when it becomes apparent that the decision-making process is being skewed by considerations of political contributions. You have a unique perspective from which to help us understand the issues.

I look forward to further discussions with you and look forward to hearing your views.

Thank you.

1 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-33868 (Apr. 7, 1994).

2Blount v. SEC , 61 F.3d 938 (1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1119 (1996).

3A Sleazy Practice That Costs Taxpayers , San Francisco Chron., Aug. 1, 1997, at A26.

4See Office of Vermont State Treasurer James H. Douglas, If You Play, You Pay: New Campaign Finance Legislation Prohibits Contracts for Wall Street Firms Contributing to State Treasurer Races, a Provision Pushed by Douglas (06/16/97) http://www.state.vt.us/treasurer/press/pr970616.htm.

5 Clifford J. Leavy, Firms Handling N.Y. Pension Fund Are Donors to Comptroller , N.Y. Times, Oct. 3, 1998, at A16)

6See Steve Hemmerick, See You in Court,’ Bank Tells Its Client: State Street Sues over Custody Contract, Pens. & Inv., Feb. 23, 1998, at 2.

7 Charles Gasparino and Jonathan Axelrod, Political Money May Sway Business of Public Pensions , Wall St. J., Mar. 24, 1997, at C1.

8 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333 o (1997); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 109 (1997).

9 15 U.S.C. 80b.

10SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. , 375 U.S. 180 (1963).

http://www.sec.gov/news/speeches/spch2501.htm

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Series 79 Questions and Answers | Investment Banking Exam

Q&A For New FINRA Exam License

We have fielded a number of questions regarding the new Series 79 exam for investment banking professionals.  We are creating this question and answer page as a service to our readers.  We will attempt to answer questions as best as possible and our understanding the 79 exam license and the way it will be utilized in practice will develop over time so we expect this resource to become more valuable over time.  Please help us to make this a valuable resource by adding your questions, responses or comments below.

****

Question: While the series 79 makes sense in allowing investment bankers to focus on more pertinent test questions,  do the principal requirements for a boutique (i.e. 3 person) investment banking shop remain the same.  In other words,  is a small shop doing only investment banking still required to  be a BD with series 24 and series 27 registered principals which are tested extensively on managing a full Reg Rep not a Ltd Rep as in series 79?  Thanks!

Answer: I believe you are asking whether a small BD, which is only engages in investment banking activities, needs to continue to have a General Securities Profession (Series 24) and a Financial and Operations Principal (Series 27) – if so, then yes.  Additionally, such a firm will need to make sure that the Series 24 licensed principal also has a Series 79 license.  Generally all Series 24s will have the Series 7 as well so the Series 24 principal will need to opt-in to the Series 79 license prior by May 3, 2010.

To opt-in, a Series 7 licensed representative or principal will need to amend their Form U4 to request the Investment Banking representation.  The opt-in period will not begin until November 2, 2009 and will run until May 3, 2010.  After May 3, 2010, if a Series 7 licensed individual has not opted-in to the Series 79, then the individual will need to take the exam in prior to participating in investment banking activities.  The Form U4 will be amended to include this new registration category.

—-

Question: I have been a business brokers in [state] under the Real Estate license. Will I be required [to have] a Series 79 license in order to continue my [business] broker practice whereby assets are sold through every transaction?  Thanks.

Answer: This question is basically asking whether a business broker will need to be registered as a broker-dealer if the broker is only advising on the sale of assets (and not the securities of a company).  This question is fact specific and the answer will depend on the specific facts of the situation and the various state laws which may be implicated.  You should discuss this issue with an attorney.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about the Series 79 or investment banking activities, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

CFTC to Discuss Cap and Trade Regulation

Carbon Emission Trading Likely to See Future Regulation

The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill which was passed in Congress earlier this year (currently waiting for Senate approval) has had a number of interested parties discussing what cap and trade regulation in the U.S. will look like and how the various government agencies will regulate the new system.  The CFTC is jockeying for position to be the agency to regulate the carbon emission markets and the CFTC Advisory Comittee is meeting to discuss the manner in which the agency may regulate the markets.   We will report any news on this event and will continue to report how the cap and trade legislation will fit into the alternative investment industry and how it may affect hedge funds.

The CFTC press release is reprinted in full below and can be found here.

****

Release: 5716-09
For Release: September 14, 2009

CFTC Advisory Committee to Discuss Energy and Environmental Markets

Committee to provide views on emissions trading markets and relevant energy issues.

Washington, DC – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) will convene the second meeting of its expanded Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee (EEMAC) at 8:00 a.m. EDT, on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at the CFTC’s New York Regional Office, 140 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10005.

The Committee will focus on recent CFTC hearings on position limits and hedge exemptions, regulatory reform and legislative proposals, and carbon and other emissions trading markets.

Bart Chilton, the Committee’s Chair, stated that “As Congress once again takes up the important topic of cap and trade legislation, the issue of regulatory oversight in these markets becomes even more critical. The CFTC has a longstanding history of federal regulation of derivatives trading—from monitoring exchange activity to ensuring financial responsibility to carrying out disciplinary and enforcement actions, and it’s very important to have the federal oversight of the entire market as seamless as possible. These markets will be so big, and their impact so large, that the oversight needs to be done right—from the outset.”

The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight will present an update on energy and environmental markets, the Office of Legislative Affairs will present an update on current legislation and several Committee members will present their views on specific issues. The Commission has invited staff from other federal agencies to attend as observers.

The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will be webcast via the internet and audio of the hearing will be available via a listen-only conference call. Individuals may also view the hearing via teleconference at the Commission’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.; and the Commission’s Chicago Regional Office, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100.

What: Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee Meeting

Location: CFTC New York Regional Office, Hearing Room, 140 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10005

Date: September 16, 2009

Time: 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. EDT

Viewing/Listening Information:

The CFTC has made available the following options to access the hearing:

1. Watch a live broadcast of the meeting via Webcast on www.cftc.gov.

2. Call in to a toll-free telephone line to connect to a live audio feed.

Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation. Conference call information is listed below:

Domestic Toll Free: (888) 691-4252
International Toll: (404) 537-3379
The conference ID: 20577008
Call leader name: Bart Chilton
Last Updated: September 14, 2009

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  Mr. Mallon is also helps managers to register with the regulatory bodies including the SEC and CFTC.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you need to register with the SEC or CFTC, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

SEC Budget to Double Under Schumer Proposal

Embarrassed Agency Would Get Much Needed Funding

“The SEC’s failure to catch Bernie Madoff shows a level of incompetence unseen since FEMA’s handling of Hurricane Katrina” — Charles Schumer

To say that the SEC is or should be embarrassed about the Madoff scandal is an understatement (please see our most recent discussion on the SEC and Madoff).  However, we have to recognize that the SEC has always been (and potentially always will be) hampered by a limited government budget.  Budget size affects the ability of the SEC to be an effective enforcer in a number of key ways – not the least of which is the SEC’s (in)ability to train and retain staff who are able to understand the nuance and intricacies of the investment management industry.  The budget issue may soon become a non-issue if a proposal by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer makes its way through congress.  The Schumer proposal would provide the SEC with badly needed additional funding by allowing the agency to collect fees from the institutions it oversees.  According to Schumer’s press release, reprinted in full below, “In 2007, though the SEC brought in $1.54 billion in fees, it secured just $881.6 million in funding. Had the agency simply been able to hold onto all the fees it collected, it would have represented a 75 percent increase over the budget it was allotted through the appropriations process.”

We fully stand behind the Schumer proposal and believe that the SEC needs significantly more funding (than it currently receives) in order to do its job effectively.  Additional funding is also needed because of the likely increase of the scope of the SEC’s oversight responsibilities.  As we have reported before President Obama is calling for increased financial regulation and members of the Senate and Congress have been quick to propose a handful of bills which would completely burden the SEC if it was not appropriated more funds.  We also would like to point out that the CFTC has similar budget concerns and should also be appropratiated more funds.

We urge Congress to move forward with the Schumer proposal and to pass a similar bill for the benefit of the CFTC.

****

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 3, 2009

IN WAKE OF EXPLOSIVE REPORT ON FAILURE TO CATCH MADOFF… SCHUMER PROPOSES ALLOWING SEC TO KEEP ALL FEES IT COLLECTS IN ORDER TO AFFORD BETTER-TRAINED PERSONNEL—LEGISLATION COULD RESULT IN NEAR-DOUBLING OF AGENCY BUDGET

Yesterday’s Inspector General Report Faulted SEC
Staff’s Lack of Expertise and Experience For Failure To Discover Madoff Ponzi Scheme

Schumer’s Proposal Would Give SEC Access To Millions In Badly-Needed Funds To Recruit And Retain Higher-Caliber Examiners

Schumer Bill Would Treat Investor Protection Agency Like Fed and FDIC, Which are Already Allowed To Keep Fees They Collect

On the heels of an explosive independent report that blamed the failure to catch Bernie Madoff’s fraud scheme on widespread incompetence at the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced Thursday that he is drafting legislation to allow the agency to keep all of the fees it collects so it can afford to recruit and retain better-trained personnel.

Schumer’s proposal, to be introduced when Congress returns to session next week, would, on average, bolster the SEC’s budget by hundreds of millions on an annual basis, enabling the agency to attract professionals with the expertise required to uncover complex financial fraud. In recent years, the size of the financial markets has grown rapidly while the SEC’s budget has remained essentially flat. The new funding scheme Schumer is proposing would treat the SEC in the same way as Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, both of which are funded through fees it collects from institutions it oversees.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has already signaled her support for Schumer’s proposal.

“The SEC’s failure to catch Bernie Madoff shows a level of incompetence unseen since FEMA’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. It is clear the SEC needs a bigger, more reliable funding stream so it can retain and recruit the top talent that has fled the agency of late,” Schumer said. “Under the current system, the agency’s rank-and-file personnel are struggling to keep up with the more sophisticated actors in the market. We cannot keep starving the SEC’s budget or the agency will remain a shadow of its former self.”

Schumer’s proposal comes after the SEC released a damning report by the Inspector General yesterday. According to a summary of the report, the SEC had enough evidence against Madoff to merit an investigation into the dealings of his investment firm, but the agency simply didn’t see what was happening right in front of them. The report repeatedly cites the lack of experience and expertise of the SEC personnel assigned to investigate Madoff, finding that they “failed to appreciate the significance of the analysis” in the complaints about Madoff and “failed to follow up on inconsistencies.”

Schumer said the agency’s ability to retain experienced personnel is an ongoing problem since Wall Street firms are increasingly able to lure the agency’s experts with higher salaries. Schumer said the SEC’s chronic under-funding must be addressed in a comprehensive way. Currently, the SEC raises millions more dollars every year in registration and transaction fees (not including enforcement penalties or settlements) than it is allocated through the appropriations process, but its budget is limited to the amount approved by Congress.  In 2007, though the SEC brought in $1.54 billion in fees, it secured just $881.6 million in funding. Had the agency simply been able to hold onto all the fees it collected, it would have represented a 75 percent increase over the budget it was allotted through the appropriations process.

The SEC is one of only two financial regulators in the U.S. that must go through the annual Congressional appropriations process.  U.S. banking regulators such as the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, on the other hand, can use what they collect in fees, deposit insurance and interest income to fund their operations.

Under Schumer’s proposal, the SEC will fund its own operations by using the transaction and registration fees it collects in place of a Congressionally-mandated budget.  Self-funding will give the SEC access to millions more than is allocated through the Congressional appropriations process. Shapiro has suggested that hiring hundreds of new employees over the next few years for the Division of Enforcement and the Office of Compliance, Inspection, and Examination will give the SEC the human and technological resources it needs to keep up with a vast and expanding market.

The SEC’s staff of approximately 3,650 oversees 35,000 entities.  Securities trading volume has increased 261% between 2003 and 2008, but the SEC staff grew only 15% over that period of time.  The number of registered investment advisors has grown by 47%, and the assets they manage have increased by 105%.  Meanwhile, the SEC examination staff charged with overseeing this portion of the financial system has grown by only 13% in that same time.  The number of tips and complaints received by the SEC has increased by 146%, but the enforcement staff has expanded by only 23%.  The SEC does not have the technology to track such a large market with so many players, and currently the SEC has limited capabilities to analyze data and identify market and trading risk.
###

****

Other hedge fund law articles related to increased hedge fund regulation:

Outstanding Congressional Bills increasing financial regulation:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Upcoming Hedge Fund Industry Events 2009

Hedge Fund Events in September, October & November 2009

  • September 23, 2009 – Southeastern Hedge Fund Association Meting
  • October 7, 2009 – Bay Area Hedge Fund Roundtable
  • October 8, 2009 – South Florida Hedge Fund Managers
  • October 21, 2009 – Portland Alternative Investment Association
  • November 5, 2009 – Connecticut Hedge Fund Association
  • November 12, 2009 – Seattle Alternative Investment Association (Northwest Hedge Fund Society)

More information can be found below.

****

SEHFA

Dear Members and Guests:

Remember to save the date: September 23rd, 2009 for the upcoming SEHFA meeting.

Meeting will be held at the Buckhead Club located at 3344 Peachtree Road NE, Ste 2600, Atlanta, GA 30326

The meeting will start promptly at 7pm after a brief happy hour from 6pm-7pm.

The speaker for the event is Mr. Andy Redleaf, Founding Partner and CEO with Whitebox Advisors.  An original founder of the Deephaven Market Neutral Fund and the creator of Whitebox Advisors, Mr. Redleaf brings a refreshing combination of insight, energy and humor to managing a highly successful and creative family of hedge funds; bearing in mind his 30 years experience as an Options Trader.  He graduated from Yale University in three years with a BA and MA in Mathematics.  He was recognized as the top mathematics student of his graduating year.  Mr. Redleaf is a great resource and will share insightful information at the meeting.

Members are welcome to bring guests to SEHFA meetings.  The guest fee for regular meetings will be $30 and will be credited against dues if the guest becomes a member.  We ask that the guest reservation be made by the member.  Please make all checks payable to the “Southeastern Hedge Fund Association, Inc.

We look forward to seeing everyone at the event.  Please remember to save this date as more information will be distributed in the near future.

****

BAHFRT

Save the Date!
Bay Area Hedge Fund Roundtable
Join our leading panelists as they discuss
important topics that impact our industry
October 7, 2009  ♦  3:30 pm  ♦  San Francisco, CA
Sens Restaurant
4 Embarcadero Center
Promenade Level

[email protected]

****

SFHFM

Cleared OTC Products Are Here…

Are You Ready?

The Emerging Importance of Exchange Cleared Financial and Commodity Derivatives

Thursday October 8, 2009  |  Conrad Miami

We invite you to join fellow managers and industry professionals for the SFHFM Future of OTC Products Forum on October 8, 2009 in Miami.

Attendees will enjoy an open bar and hors d’oeuvres for a registration fee of  $150.  Seating is limited, register early.  (Two-for-one registration before September 14, 2009).

Preliminary Agenda and Topics:

* Michael Corcelli, Principal, Alexander Alternative and SFHFM.org – Opening Remarks
* Richard Strait, Marketing Director, Triland USA  – The importance of commodities and regulated futures in your portfolio and dangers of political manipulation in an otherwise secure market
* Tim Pickering, President, Auspice Capital Advisors Ltd.- Commodity Diversification: The tools to participate effectively: The significance of commodities, ETFs and diversification in your portfolio
* Tom Holleran, CME Director, Energy Products – Utilizing “Clearport” OTC derivative clearing in the world of tight credit and demands for increased transparency
* Keith Murphy – Executive Director, Petro-Diamond Risk Management  – Using cleared OTC products in commercial applications

****

PAIA

October 21st, 2009

Location: To Be Announced
Address – MAP
Time: To Be Announced
Panel Event

http://www.pdxai.org/node/2

****

CHFA

Global Alpha Forum 2009 – Green Shoots & Animal Spirits
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Hyatt Regency Greenwich, 1800 E. Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, CT 06870

Global Alpha ForumThe Connecticut Hedge Fund Association (CTHFA) is the premier association of alternative investment professionals operating in the center of the global hedge fund industry. The CTHFA is a professional society open to all stakeholders in Connecticut’s hedge fund industry. On November 5, 2009 CTHFA will host the Global Alpha Forum (GAF) which is the hedge fund industry’s annual meeting and is our answer to the World Economic Forum in Davos. Read more…
Register Now

Registration:

If you were in attendance at last year’s Global Alpha Forum in Greenwich last September, you are well aware of the outstanding educational sessions we offered, including the riveting keynote sessions delivered by both former Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and Larry Summers, former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the current Director of the White House’s National Economic Council. If you didn’t attend last year’s Forum, then this is your chance to see what you have been missing!

We are developing a world-class curriculum that will feature:

* A session on lessons learned from the financial crisis
* A currency crisis panel to share best practices on how to adapt to today’s economic climate
* A Regulatory Roundtable that will examine new and pending legislation
* Prominent and riveting keynote speakers

This year’s forum will be held on Thursday, Novtember 5, 2009 at the Hyatt Regency in Greenwich. Early bird registration is available and we encourage you to register now, as seats are limited and filling up quickly. I look forward to your participation.
Read More.

Sponsorship Opportunities

If your firm has an interest in sponsoring the 2009 Global Alpha Forum, please call 866.992.7921 (toll free) or 860.586.7577 to inquire about sponsorship packages.  To complete a sponsorship application Click here .

http://www.cthedge.org/Events/global.html

****

NWHFS

Thursday, November 12, 2009
Registration: 5:15-6:00pm
Program: 6:00-7:30pm

Distressed Investing
Panel Event

Location:
Downtown Seattle venue to be determined.  Please check back for updates!
• Free for Members
• Non-member fee: $75

Event Details:

Moderator: Michelle Celarier, Editor in Chief, AR Alpha Magazine

Speakers:

Steve Persky, Principal, Dalton Investments, LLC

Jonathan Rosenthal, Partner, Saybrook Capital, LLC

Peter Stein, Managing Director, Pacific Alternative Asset Management Company

Fourth panelist to be determined