Author Archives: Hedge Fund Lawyer

Hedge Fund Business & Technical Issues

2 Replies

Overview

In addition to providing startup and established managers with information on various hedge fund laws and regulations, we have also provided a number of articles on the general business issues that hedge fund managers need to address.  These articles cover a number of areas and many of the articles below are from service providers to hedge funds.  Please feel free to suggest other areas for us to explore in future articles.

Hedge Fund Technology, IT and Internet Issues

  • IT Issues for Hedge Fund Managers – this article, written by a technology solutions firm, details some of the IT solutions which are available to hedge fund managers who will need to register after the new hedge fund registration rules are adopted.  These issues also apply for currently registered (SEC or state) hedge fund managers as well.
  • Data Warehouse Implementation for Hedge Funds – a summary of a panel discussion on the reasons managers should think about implementing a data warehouse system.
  • Hedge Fund Hotels – hedge fund hotels offer managers a whole suite of hosted services for turnkey back office implementation.
  • Hedge Fund Domain Names – this article discusses domain names for hedge fund managers.
  • Hedge Fund Managers and Blogs – this article discusses whether hedge fund managers can run a blog.

Hedge Fund Tax Issues

  • Proposition Q and Hedge Funds – hedge fund managers located in San Francisco should be aware of Proposition Q (a special San Francisco payroll tax) and how it will affect them and their top earners.

General Business Issues

  • Hedge Fund Employment Law Issues – this article, forthcoming, will discuss the issues that managers need to consider when they bring on employees for the first time.  While each state will have different laws and regulations which the manager will need to follow, there are general items which a manager should be prepared for including establishing a structure to pay state and federal income taxes for employees.
  • IP Licensing Agreements – this article, forthcoming, will discuss the business and legal issues involved when managers license their intellectual property to a hedge fund.
  • Hedge Fund Management Company Insurance – this article discusses the costs of insurance for hedge fund management companies.
  • Hedge Funds and Rehypothication – this article discusses rehypothication as it relates to hedge funds.
  • Prime Brokers, Margin Lock-ups and Hedge Funds – this article discusses prime broker margin lock-ups and some of the issues which managers should understand.
  • Hedge Fund Operational Issues and Failures – this article discusses a press release about a white paper released from a hedge fund due diligence firm.  The firm examines the reason why many hedge fund managers fail.
  • Hedge Fund Operations During a Pandemic – examines the issues which face managers because of the H1N1 virus.
  • Agreed Upon Procedures – hedge fund managers sometimes will engage auditors to provide “agreed upon procedures” especially with regard to their Level III assets.  This article, written by a hedge fund due diligence firm, provides some thoughts on how investor may view these procedures in the future.  Managers should be aware of how investors (or potential investors) might view these types of engagements.
  • Women and Hedge Funds – this article explores the world and opportunities for women in the hedge fund industry.
  • Naming Your Hedge Fund – this article discusses common hedge fund naming conventions.
  • Hedge Fund Best Practices – discussion of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) report on hedge fund best practices.
  • SIPC Customer Asset Protection – statements by FINRA and the SEC on asset protection for customers.

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog and can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

House Committee Votes for Hedge Fund Registration

2 Replies

Bart Mallon, Esq. (http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com)

Private Equity Funds Not Excluded

Today the House Financial Services Committee voted to require hedge fund managers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  While private equity firms are also required to register under the proposed bill, managers to venture capital funds are excluded from this registration requirement.

The bill will next be presented to the House of Representatives and if it passes there it will move onto the Senate and eventually to President Obama to sign into law.  The name of the bill is the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009.  For the full text please see H.R. 3818.

****

For Immediate Release: October 27, 2009

Committee Approves Private Advisor Registration Bill with Bipartisan Support

Washington, DC – Today, the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 3818, the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act, introduced by Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.  The Committee passed H.R. 3818 with extensive bipartisan support by a vote of 67-1.  Tomorrow, the Committee is expected to vote on Chairman Kanjorski’s H.R. 3817, the Investor Protection Act and H.R. 3890, the Accountability and Transparency in Rating Agencies Act.

“The Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act, which passed today with wide-ranging bipartisanship support, will force many more financial providers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission,” said Chairman Kanjorski.  “The past year has shown that the deregulation or in many cases, lack of regulation, of financial firms is an idea of the past.  Advisors to financial firms must receive government oversight and we must understand the assets of financial firms, including for hedge funds, private equity firms, and other private pools of capital.  Under this legislation, private investment funds would become subject to more scrutiny by the SEC and take more responsibility for their actions.  I look forward to moving this legislation to the House floor for a vote.”

A summary of H.R. 3818 follows:

  • Everyone Registers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. By mandating the registration of private advisers to private pools of capital regulators will better understand exactly how those entities operate and whether their actions pose a threat to the financial system as a whole.
  • Better Regulatory Information. New recordkeeping and disclosure requirements for private advisers will give regulators the information needed to evaluate both individual firms and entire market segments that have until this time largely escaped any meaningful regulation, without posing undue burdens on those industries.
  • Level the Playing Field. The advisers to hedge funds, private equity firms, single-family offices, and other private pools of capital will have to obey some basic ground rules in order to continue to play in our capital markets. Regulators will have authority to examine the records of these previously secretive investment advisers.

****

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. of  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog and can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

H.R. 3818 | Hedge Fund Registration

8 Replies

Bart Mallon, Esq. (http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com)

Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009 (text of act)

Below is the final text of the hedge fund registration bill as passed by the House Financial Services Commission.

****

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3818

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require advisers of certain unregistered investment companies to register with and provide information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 15, 2009

Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require advisers of certain unregistered investment companies to register with and provide information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

Section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

`(29) PRIVATE FUND- The term `private fund’ means an investment fund that–

`(A) would be an investment company under section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)) but for the exception provided from that definition by either section 3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of such Act; and

`(B) either–

`(i) is organized or otherwise created under the laws of the United States or of a State; or

`(ii) has 10 percent or more of its outstanding securities by value owned by United States persons.

`(30) FOREIGN PRIVATE FUND ADVISER- The term `foreign private fund adviser’ means an investment adviser who–

`(A) has no place of business in the United States;

`(B) during the preceding 12 months has had–

`(i) fewer than 15 clients in the United States; and

`(ii) assets under management attributable to clients in the United States of less than $25,000,000, or such higher amount as the Commission may, by rule, deem appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors; and

`(C) neither holds itself out generally to the public in the United States as an investment adviser, nor acts as an investment adviser to any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or a company which has elected to be a business development company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-53) and has not withdrawn such election.’.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE ADVISER EXEMPTION; LIMITED EXEMPTION FOR FOREIGN PRIVATE FUND ADVISERS; LIMITED INTRASTATE EXEMPTION.

Section 203(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(b)) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `, except an investment adviser who acts as an investment adviser to any private fund,’ after `any investment adviser’;

(2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:

`(3) any investment adviser that is a foreign private fund adviser;’;

(3) in paragraph (5), by striking `or’ at the end; and

(4) in paragraph (6)–

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or’;

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and adding `; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) a private fund.’.

SEC. 4. COLLECTION OF SYSTEMIC RISK DATA.

Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-4) is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:

`(b) Records and Reports of Private Funds-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission is authorized to require any investment adviser registered under this Act to maintain such records of and file with the Commission such reports regarding private funds advised by the investment adviser as are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk as the Commission determines in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Commission is authorized to provide or make available to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to any other entity that the Commission identifies as having systemic risk responsibility, those reports or records or the information contained therein. The records and reports of any private fund, to which any such investment adviser provides investment advice, maintained or filed by an investment adviser registered under this Act, shall be deemed to be the records and reports of the investment adviser.

`(2) REQUIRED INFORMATION- The records and reports required to be maintained or filed with the Commission under this subsection shall include, for each private fund advised by the investment adviser–

`(A) the amount of assets under management;

`(B) the use of leverage (including off-balance sheet leverage);

`(C) counterparty credit risk exposures;

`(D) trading and investment positions;

`(E) trading practices; and

`(F) such other information as the Commission, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk.

`(3) OPTIONAL INFORMATION- The Commission may require the reporting of such additional information from private fund advisers as the Commission determines necessary. In making such determination, the Commission may set different reporting requirements for different classes of private fund advisers, based on the particular types or sizes of private funds advised by such advisers.

`(4) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS- An investment adviser registered under this Act is required to maintain and keep such records of private funds advised by the investment adviser for such period or periods as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk.

`(5) EXAMINATION OF RECORDS-

`(A) PERIODIC AND SPECIAL EXAMINATIONS- All records of a private fund maintained by an investment adviser registered under this Act shall be subject at any time and from time to time to such periodic, special, and other examinations by the Commission, or any member or representative thereof, as the Commission may prescribe.

`(B) AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS- An investment adviser registered under this Act shall make available to the Commission or its representatives any copies or extracts from such records as may be prepared without undue effort, expense, or delay as the Commission or its representatives may reasonably request.

`(6) INFORMATION SHARING- The Commission shall make available to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to any other entity that the Commission identifies as having systemic risk responsibility, copies of all reports, documents, records, and information filed with or provided to the Commission by an investment adviser under this subsection as the Board, or such other entity, may consider necessary for the purpose of assessing the systemic risk of a private fund. All such reports, documents, records, and information obtained by the Board, or such other entity, from the Commission under this subsection shall be kept confidential.

`(7) DISCLOSURES OF CERTAIN PRIVATE FUND INFORMATION- An investment adviser registered under this Act shall provide such reports, records, and other documents to investors, prospective investors, counterparties, and creditors, of any private fund advised by the investment adviser as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk.

`(8) CONFIDENTIALITY OF REPORTS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any report or information contained therein required to be filed with the Commission under this subsection. Nothing in this paragraph shall authorize the Commission to withhold information from the Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency or any self-regulatory organization requesting the report or information for purposes within the scope of its jurisdiction, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this paragraph shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section.’.

SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF DISCLOSURE PROVISION.

Section 210 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-10) is amended by striking subsection (c).

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION OF AND REPORTING BY VENTURE CAPITAL FUND ADVISERS.

Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(l) Exemption of and Reporting by Venture Capital Fund Advisers- The Commission shall identify and define the term `venture capital fund’ and shall provide an adviser to such a fund an exemption from the registration requirements under this section. The Commission shall require such advisers to maintain such records and provide to the Commission such annual or other reports as the Commission determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.’.

SEC. 7. CLARIFICATION OF RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

Section 211 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-11) is amended–

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

`(a) The Commission shall have authority from time to time to make, issue, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations and such orders as are necessary or appropriate to the exercise of the functions and powers conferred upon the Commission elsewhere in this title, including rules and regulations defining technical, trade, and other terms used in this title. For the purposes of its rules and regulations, the Commission may–

`(1) classify persons and matters within its jurisdiction based upon, but not limited to–

`(A) size;

`(B) scope;

`(C) business model;

`(D) compensation scheme; or

`(E) potential to create or increase systemic risk;

`(2) prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters; and

`(3) ascribe different meanings to terms (including the term `client’) used in different sections of this title as the Commission determines necessary to effect the purposes of this title.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e) The Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall, after consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009, jointly promulgate rules to establish the form and content of the reports required to be filed with the Commission under sections 203(i) and 204(b) and with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by investment advisers that are registered both under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) and the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).’.

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP 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.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP helps hedge fund managers to register as investment advisors with the SEC or the state securities divisions.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or register as an investment advisor, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Hedge Fund Audit Firms and Agreed Upon Procedures

1 Reply

Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Discusses “Agreed Upon Procedures”

We’ve published a number of thoughtful pieces on this blog from Chris Addy, president and CEO of Castle Hall Alternatives (see, for example, article on Hedge Fund Operational Issues and Failures).  Today we are publishing a piece by Chris which discusses hard to value hedge fund assets (so called Level III assets).  In certain situations hedge fund audit firms will be engaged to perform an “Agreed Upon Procedures” review of the pricing of these assets.  As discussed in the article below, agreed upon procedures engagements do not provide hedge fund investors with a great deal of comfort with regard to the pricing of these assets.  It is unclear whether in the future investors will push back with regard to such engagements and require more robust pricing audits.  The problem with more robust procedures, obviously, is increased cost (because of increased liability for the audit firms).

Managers who are engaging audit firms pursuant to agreed upon procedures should be aware that they may face tougher questions from investors going forward.

****

Agreed Upon Procedures

A number of our recent posts have focused on the challenges of the hedge fund administrator‘s role in relation to security valuation.  We will, of course, return to this topic – but, in the meantime, wanted to focus on some of the alternatives to administrator pricing.

One of the more common comments from today’s administrators is that, while an admin may be able to price Level I and Level II securities, they do not necessarily have information to price Level III instruments.  (To recap, the US accounting standard FAS 157 divides portfolios into three levels, being Level I, liquid instruments readily priced from a pricing feed (typically exchange traded); Level II, instruments priced using inputs from “comparable” securities (essentially mark to model, albeit with mainstream models); and Level III, everything else.)

This leaves investors with a challenge – if administrators cannot price Level III instruments, who can? Moreover, to repeat one of our frequent comments, it is self evident that if a hedge fund manager wishes to deliberately mismark securities, they would most likely misprice a Level III instrument.  It is, of course, very hard to fake the price of IBM common stock, but much easier to mismark emerging market private loans.

Two of the most common tools available to hedge fund managers looking for third party oversight over pricing for Level III instruments – assuming the administrator has washed their hands of the problem – are third party pricing agents and auditor agreed upon procedures, or “AUP”.  We will return to the strengths and weaknesses of third party pricing agents in a subsequent post, but wanted to focus this discussion on AUP.

In an Agreed Upon Procedures engagement, the auditor completes specific procedures which have been dictated by the client.  The procedures are specified and the auditor then prepares a report outlining the findings of that specific work.

We have two comments here: the first is to take a high level view as to the adequacy of these procedures, and the second is to dig a little more deeply into the actual audit guidance that covers this type of work.

Our first comment is, unfortunately, an Emporer Has No Clothes observation.  The significant majority of hedge fund AUP engagements we have seen require the auditor to test a fund’s pricing on a quarterly basis.  This usually involves (i) obtaining a portfolio list from the investment manager and (ii) testing the pricing support for those positions.

There are, however, generally two snags.  Firstly, many AUP only test a sample of prices, not the whole portfolio.  Sample testing clearly provides much less assurance than a price review of all positions: the administrator, for example, is usually expected to price the entire book (would any investor accept a NAV which has been priced on a “sample” basis???)

The bigger problem, however, is the type of testing completed by the auditor.  In way, way too many cases, the auditor tests security prices back to the manager’s own pricing support and makes no attempt to obtain independent pricing information.

This type of work is, clearly, somewhere between minimal and absolutely no value for investors.  If the auditor receives a spreadsheet from the manager showing the matrix of broker quotes received, how does the auditor know that the manager has not adjusted that spreadsheet to exclude quotes which were uncomfortably low?  Even more importantly, if all the auditor does is to check prices back to pieces of paper in the manager’s own pricing file, how does the auditor know that those pieces of paper are genuine?  As we have said before, and will keep on saying, it only costs $500 to buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop if you are of a mind to alter documentation.

When discussing this type of work, the manager typically notes that, if the auditor was to complete a full, independent pricing review, it would be too costly and too time consuming to be practical on a quarterly basis.  A full, GAAP audit review is, of course, performed at year end – this does include independent pricing (although – investor fyi – auditors will still only sample test many portfolios.)

While these are fair points, it remains the case that this type of AUP provides minimal protection against pricing fraud.  In the meantime, the manager gets the marketing benefit of being able to claim enhanced scrutiny and oversight from a Big 4 firm each quarter.

Which leads to our second point.  Why would an auditor accept to complete agreed upon procedures when any reasonable accountant would rapidly conclude that the typical scope of these AUP provide pretty much nil controls assurance?  Why does the auditor not insist that, if their name is to be associated to this work, then the procedures must be meaningful and sufficient to meet an actual control standard?

To this point, the actual audit standard applicable to AUP is available here.  The standard states:

An agreed-upon procedures engagement is one in which a practitioner is engaged by a client to issue a report of findings based on specific procedures performed on subject matter. The client engages the practitioner to assist specified parties in evaluating subject matter or an assertion as a result of a need or needs of the specified parties. Because the specified parties require that findings be independently derived, the services of a practitioner are obtained to perform procedures and report his or her findings. The specified parties and the practitioner agree upon the procedures to be performed by the practitioner that the specified parties believe are appropriate. Because the needs of the specified parties may vary widely, the nature, timing, and extent of the agreed upon procedures may vary as well; consequently, the specified parties assume responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures since they best understand their own needs. In an engagement performed under this section, the practitioner does not perform an examination or a review, as discussed in section 101, and does not provide an opinion or negative assurance. Instead, the practitioner’s report on agreed-upon procedures should be in the form of procedures and findings.

In practice, this all gets horribly circular.  Per the standard, a client requests an auditor to complete AUP to assist “specified parties” to “evaluate subject matter or an assertion”.  In our case, the assertion would be “are hard to value securities valued correctly at quarter end.”

However, the specified party is usually the manager itself, making the client and specified party the same person.  The particular trick applied, in many cases, is for the auditor to seek to prevent the investor from actually seeing the AUP in the first place!  However, if the investor is to have access to the AUP, the auditor universally requires the investor to sign a Catch 22 document which requires the investor to acknowledge that the AUP are “sufficient for their needs”.  So, even if the investor believes that the AUP are not “sufficient for their needs” – which is hardly a long stretch – the investor has to sign that the procedures are sufficient if they are to even see the auditor’s work.  With this magic piece of paper, the auditor has met its requirements and can sleep easy.  Meanwhile, the auditor will send a bill to – guess who – the fund, meaning that investors have, once more, had to foot the bill.

As always, Caveat Emptor.

www.castlehallalternatives.com

Hedge Fund Operational Due Diligence

****

Related hedge fund law articles:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog and can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Proposition Q and Hedge Funds

2 Replies

San Francisco’s Proposition Q and its Impact on Hedge Fund Managers

Proposition Q Passes in a Landslide

On November 4, 2008, San Francisco voters approved Proposition Q modifying the city’s Payroll Expense Tax by a resounding 74% of the vote. This little noticed proposition, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, will impact many hedge fund managers and other businesses in San Francisco.

San Francisco’s Payroll Expense Tax

Companies with one or more employees within the City and County of San Francisco and a payroll greater than $250,000 are required to pay a Payroll Expense Tax to the city equal to 1.5 percent of their taxable payroll. In 2007, the Payroll Tax generated over $350 million in revenues for San Francisco. Prior to Proposition Q, the law was unclear about whether compensation for services related to “pass through” entities such as partnerships and limited liability companies was considered “compensation paid to employees” and therefore subject to the Payroll Expense Tax. In reality, for most hedge fund managers in San Francisco, this meant that the distributions made to owners of the company or partnership were not subject to the tax.

Effect of Proposition Q

Proposition Q clarified that such distributions for payments to partners/owners for work done in San Francisco must be included in the calculation of the Payroll Expense Tax. For example, if a hedge fund manager earns $5 million per year, pays $250,000 in salaries to its employees, and distributes $4 million in profits to its partners or owners, prior to Proposition Q only the $250,000 paid to the employees was definitely subject to the Payroll Expense Tax. Beginning in 2009, however, the entire $4 million paid to the partners or owners, will also be subject to the Payroll Expense Tax.

Lack of Guidance and Recommendations

Proposition Q garnered scant attention in the news media, and will no doubt catch many hedge fund managers by surprise this year. The website of the San Francisco Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector provides almost no information for business owners about the proposition. We advise that hedge fund managers keep Proposition Q and the Payroll Expense Tax in mind when making employment and compensation decisions. In particular, managers should keep in mind the safe harbor provision when determining the owner’s own W2 compensation, as well as the compensation of the top 25% of employees. Managers should also consult with their tax advisors to anticipate the impact of Proposition Q on their 2009 Payroll Expense Taxes, and determine whether they need to adjust their pre-payments of those taxes.

To find out more about Proposition Q and other topics relating to compensation and employment law issues for hedge fund managers, please contact Karl Cole-Frieman of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP (www.colefrieman.com) at 415-352-2300.

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog and can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

CFTC Head Addresses Futures Industry in Chicago

Leave a reply

Futures Industry Association Annual Expo

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler today spoke at the Futures Industry Association’s annual expo in Chicago. While most of the Chairman’s speech  focused on the proposed regulation of the OTC derivatives markets, Chairman Gensler also discussed the recent SEC and CFTC Harmonization report. As you can imagine, Gensler is for increasing regulation of the entire financial markets. Below I have included some of the more interested quotes which can be found in the text of the speech text of Chairman Gensler’s speech.

The CTA Expo was going on as well during this time and I will be writing more articles on the speakers at this conference over the next few days.

****

Both of the committees’ bills include three important elements of regulatory reform: First, they require swap dealers and major swap participants to register and come under comprehensive regulation. This includes capital standards, margin requirements, business conduct standards and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Second, the bills require that dealers and major swap participants bring their clearable swaps into central clearinghouses. Third, they require dealers and major swap participants to use transparent trading venues for their clearable swaps.

The challenge remains, though, determining which transactions should be covered by these reforms. I believe that we must bring as many transactions under the regulatory umbrella as possible. This will best accomplish the two principal goals of reform: lowering risk to the American public and promoting transparency of the markets.

****

To promote market transparency, all standardized OTC products should be moved onto regulated exchanges or trade execution facilities. This is the best way to reduce information deficits for participants in these markets. Transparency greatly improves the functioning of the existing securities and futures markets. We should shine the same light on the swaps markets. Increasing transparency for standardized derivatives should enable both large and small end-users to obtain better pricing on standard and customized products.

****

Some have articulated a false choice between stronger regulation on the one hand and a free market on the other. Rules improve markets, however, by enhancing efficiency and integrity. Traffic lights require you to stop your car, but they also ensure that traffic is orderly and efficient. They reduce risks for every person on the highway. Similarly, this country’s markets work best with clear rules of the road.

****

Last year’s crisis also highlighted the need for regulators to change. In that regard, the CFTC last week released a joint report with the SEC to bring greater consistency, where appropriate, to our regulatory approaches. While the missions of the CFTC and the SEC may differ, our goal is the same: to protect the public, enhance market integrity and promote transparency. In preparing our report, we set turf aside and focused on those changes that would best benefit the markets and the American people.

We jointly made 20 recommendations where we can change our statutes and regulations to enhance both agencies’ enforcement powers, strengthen market and intermediary oversight and facilitate greater operational coordination.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Investment Adviser Representative Registration Requirement

2 Replies

Employees of Registered IAs Must Generally be Registered

State-registered investment advisory firms need to make sure that their employees who are deemed to be “investment advisory representatives” are appropriately registered. This means that any employee (or owner) of the IA firm who provides investment advice or who has supervisory authority will generally need to be registered with the state as a representative of the firm. In order to register, the applicant will need to have certain qualifications and generally the series 65 will be sufficient for these purposes.

There are consequences for not properly registering employees as investment advisor representatives. In an earlier article on whether IA firms can have silent owners, we discussed the fact that many state administrators have the power to censure or fine IA firms if they do not follow the registration rules. I recently stumbled across an example of a state taking such an action.

In the attached [intentionally removed], the Texas State Securities Board (“Board”) concluded that the “unregistered employee” of the registered investment advisory firm provided investment advice to IA clients for compensation and that the IA firm failed to maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Texas Securities Act and Board Rules. The Board reprimanded the IA firm and also ordered an administrative fine of $5,000. The firm was required to comply with the Act and Board Rules moving forward.

The two important take-aways from this order are:

  1. Always make sure employees are registered or clearly exempt from registration, and
  2. Always ensure that you have an up-to-date compliance program that helps to ensure that the firm will operate within all applicable laws and regulations.

We always recommend that registered IA firms discuss any registration and compliance related matters with an experienced investment management attorney with detailed knowledge of the laws of the state where the firm is registered.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog.  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 your investment advisor compliance program, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Hedge Fund Manager Charged with Insider Trading

Leave a reply

SEC Brings Case Against Raj Rajaratnam

Below is another case of a hedge fund manager who was alledgedly engaged in insider trading. The SEC seems particularly excited about this cased because of the high profile nature of the manager who was involved. The major charge is against Raj Rajaratnam who reportedly has a net worth in excess of $1 billion and who is a member of the Forbes 400 richest persons in the world.

There will undoubtedly be continued press in this case which is not good news for the hedge fund industry. The industry has been subject to criticism and increased calls for regulation for the last year and high profile cases like this one only serve to rile up members of congress. The SEC seems to be particularly proud about this “catch” as the agency has itself been under increasing scrutiny as the details of the fumbled Madoff case have been made public.

****

SEC Charges Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager Raj Rajaratnam with Insider Trading

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-221

High-Ranking Corporate Executives Also Charged in Scheme That Generated More Than $25 Million in Illicit Gains

Washington, D.C., Oct. 16, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged billionaire Raj Rajaratnam and his New York-based hedge fund advisory firm Galleon Management LP with engaging in a massive insider trading scheme that generated more than $25 million in illicit gains. The SEC also charged six others involved in the scheme, including senior executives at major companies IBM, Intel and McKinsey & Company.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Rajaratnam tapped into his network of friends and close business associates to obtain insider tips and confidential information about corporate earnings or takeover activity at several companies, including Google, Hilton and Sun Microsystems. He then used the non-public information to illegally trade on behalf of Galleon.

“This complaint describes a web of fraud that has been unraveled,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro.

“What we have uncovered in the trading activities of Raj Rajaratnam is that the secret of his success is not genius trading strategies. He is not the astute study of company fundamentals or marketplace trends that he is widely thought to be. Raj Rajaratnam is not a master of the universe, but rather a master of the rolodex,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “He cultivated a network of high-ranking corporate executives and insiders, and then tapped into this ring to obtain confidential details about quarterly earnings and takeover activity.”

In addition to Rajaratnam and Galleon, the SEC’s complaint charges:

  • Danielle Chiesi of New York, N.Y. — a portfolio manager at New Castle Funds.
  • Rajiv Goel of Los Altos, Calif. — a managing director at Intel Capital, an Intel subsidiary.
  • Anil Kumar of Saratoga, Calif. — a director at McKinsey & Company.
  • Mark Kurland of Mount Kisco, N.Y. — a Senior Managing Director and General Partner at New Castle.
  • Robert Moffat of Ridgefield, Conn. — a senior vice president at IBM.
  • New Castle Funds LLC — a New York-based hedge fund

According to the SEC’s complaint, Rajaratnam and Galleon traded on inside information about the following events or transactions:

  • An unnamed source, identified in the SEC’s complaint as Tipper A, obtained inside information about earnings announcements at Polycom and Google, as well as a takeover announcement of Hilton. Tipper A then allegedly provided this information to Rajaratnam, who used it to trade on behalf of Galleon.
  • Goel provided inside information to Rajaratnam about certain Intel quarterly earnings and a pending joint venture concerning Clearwire Corp., in which Intel had invested. Rajaratnam then used this information to trade on behalf of Galleon. As payback for Goel’s tips, Rajaratnam, or someone acting on his behalf, executed trades in Goel’s personal brokerage account based on inside information concerning Hilton and PeopleSupport, which resulted in nearly $250,000 in illicit profits for Goel.
  • Kumar obtained inside information about pending transactions involving AMD and two Abu Dhabi-based sovereign entities, which he shared with Rajaratnam. Rajaratnam then traded on the basis of this information on behalf of Galleon.
  • Chiesi obtained inside information from an executive at Akamai Technologies and traded on the information on behalf of a New Castle fund, netting a profit of approximately $2.4 million. Chiesi also passed on the inside information to Rajaratnam, who then traded on behalf of Galleon.

The SEC also alleges that Moffat provided inside information to Chiesi about Sun Microsystems. Moffat obtained the information when IBM was contemplating acquiring Sun. Chiesi then allegedly traded on the basis of this information on behalf of New Castle, making approximately $1 million in profits.

The SEC’s complaint charges each of the defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and, except for Kumar and Moffat, violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and. The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the above provisions of the federal securities laws, ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and ordering them to pay financial penalties. The complaint also seeks to permanently prohibit Goel, Kumar and Moffat from acting as an officer or director of any registered public company.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The SEC’s investigation is continuing.

# # #

For more information, contact:
David Rosenfeld
Associate Director, SEC’s New York Regional Office
(212) 336-0153

Sanjay Wadhwa
Assistant Director, SEC’s New York Regional Office
(212) 336-0181

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-221.htm

****

Other related hedge fund law articles:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog.  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 are a current hedge fund manager with questions about the securities laws, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

CTA and CPO Registration and Compliance Guide

20 Replies

Practical guidance for CTA and CPO firms

Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) and Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) have been contacting me with greater regularity and we have decided to provide those firms with more detailed information on their registration and compliance requirements. Over the course of the next few weeks we will be continually updating this page with more legal and business guidance for CTAs and CPOs. Specifically, we will be providing information on the following topics:

CTA and CPO Registration – this article discusses the how-to’s of registration with the CFTC. The article details the general requirements for firms, principals, and associated persons. Included in this discussion is information on CTA/CPO exam requirements and an overview of the registration process through the NFA’s electronic registration system.

CTA and CPO Registration Exemptions – while the Commodities Exchange Act will generally require CTA and CPO firms to register with the CFTC, there are some important exemptions from the registration provisions. Review this article to see if your firm might be able to claim an exemption from the registration provisions.

CTA and CPO Compliance Overview – CTAs and CPOs are subject to a number of laws, regulations and rules. Not only must CTAs and CPOs follow CFTC laws and regulations, but as Members of the NFA, these groups must also follow all of the rules developed by the NFA. We will be discussing compliance best practices, major examination issues, major deadlines and the CTA/CPO compliance manual. Being prepared for an NFA examination is of great importance.

Recent NFA Actions against CTA and CPO Managers – the NFA and the CFTC have been quite active lately. In this article we will be discussing some of the most recent actions against NFA member firms. This article will also provide common-sense advice on what managers can do the protect themselves from examination deficiencies.

Important NFA Rules for CTA and CPO Firms – there are a number of rules which the NFA has regarding the conduct of CTAs and CPOs. In general CTAs and CPOs must hold themselves out with the utmost professionalism. This article will detail this and other important NFA rules.

CTA and CPO advertising – there are a number of important rules regarding advertising for CTAs and CPOs. CPOs, especially, must be careful about advertising because of the restrictions under Rule 506 of Regulation D, an exemption that many CPOs utilize in offering their fund interests. Websites will be touched upon in this post and will also be discussed in greater depth in a subsequent posting.

CTA and CPO websites – many CTA firms utilize the internet to advertise their services. CPO firms will also sometimes have a (minimal) internet presence. This article will detail the considerations that both CTA and CPO firms face when creating and maintaining an internet presence and how to deal with internet based inquiries from potential investors.

NFA Exam Requirements for CTAs and CPOs – individuals of NFA member firms will generally need to have a Series 3 exam license and potentially a Series 30 exam. Some individuals may need to have a Series 31 exam license and, potentially in the future, forex CTAs and CPOs will need to have a Series 34 exam license. This article will discuss these exams and the process an individual will go through in order to register to take the exams.

CTA Expo Blog – the unofficial blog of the CTA Expo most recently held in October of 2009.  Information for CTA managers on business, legal and compliance issues.  Included is a directory of CTA firms and service providers.

Forex CTAs and CPOs – the regulatory light has been focused on retail spot forex managers recently. Read this article to get up to speed on recent CFTC and NFA pronouncements regarding this area of the industry. We will also provide information on Forex IBs and Forex FCMs.

In addition to the above topics we are hoping to add others over time. We welcome all feedback and encourage you to leave comments below. We will also attempt to answer CTA and CPO frequently asked questions.

If you are a manager or firm that needs to register as a CTA or CPO, or if you are contemplating registration, please contact Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP at 415-868-5345.

Hedge Fund Investors to Sue SEC

Leave a reply

SEC’s Madoff Failure Cited in Lawsuit

Just a quick note that the New York Times has written an article about two Madoff investors who are suing the SEC for not doing its job.  It will likely be a tough case for the investors/plaintiffs to prevail upon because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity (i.e. government agencies cannot be sued for actions made pursuant to their legislative mandate).  However, the inspector general’s Madoff report, which in no uncertain terms castigates the SEC, is likely to be the basis of many of the investors’ complaints.

****

Other related hedge fund law and Madoff stories: