Category Archives: Hedge Fund Structure

Tokenized Private Funds (Hedge Funds & VC Funds)

Leave a reply

Overview of the Legal Process to Tokenize a Hedge Fund

By Bart Mallon, with Malhar Oza

As the digital asset industry continues to evolve, we see more use cases for tokenization, including tokenization of private investment funds like hedge, VC and PE funds.  While currently we see more examples of tokenizing various real world assets (RWAs) such as investments in real estate, many groups are now choosing to tokenize private investment funds for a variety of new and innovative reasons.   This blog post is intended to provide information about the legal and operational processes to take into account when tokenizing a private investment fund.

What is being tokenized?

When tokenizing a hedge fund or other private investment fund, we are talking about creating a separate instrument (essentially a digital ledger) on the blockchain in addition to creating all the “real world” formation documents. The total process is more akin to launching an existing private investment fund rather than foregoing the current fund formation and record-keeping process.  In this way we tokenize the RWA of a fund offering – because of this, we first examine the RWA parts of the tokenized fund.

Similarities between Tokenized and Non-Tokenized Funds

While there are many differences between traditional and tokenized funds, from a high level overview, they have essentially equivalent legal/regulatory and operational requirements for the non-tokenized features.  These similarities include: 

Structure – like a traditional fund, a tokenized fund is going to be structured with (1) a management level entity or entities and (2) the fund level entity or entities (including potentially offshore feeder funds).  For any private investment fund, the driving considerations for structure will involve business questions (e.g., where are investors located, where are investments made, etc) and tax (where is the manager physically located, do investors have specific tax needs, etc).  Like traditional funds, managers are going to need to think about how regulatory requirements may affect structure generally (see below for more information here).  For tokenized private investments funds there may also be a token issuing entity as well (discussed below) that will interact with this traditional structure.

Offering Documents – as with a traditional private fund, a tokenized fund needs to have fund offering documents.  Specifically, a tokenized fund will have a PPM, limited partnership (or operating) agreement and subscription documents that will be substantially similar in structure and content to traditional non-tokenized funds.  These documents describe the standard items for any private fund, and also make reference to many of the token-specific characteristics of the investment.

Investment program – while many will assume that a tokenized fund will be a crypto fund, these vehicles can be established to invest in any asset class (traditional securities (publicly or privately traded), real estate, art, commodities, etc.).  The requirement to accurately describe the major aspects of the investment program in the fund offering documents are the same for both tokenized and traditional funds alike. 

Service providers – the main service providers will be the same – this means that the manager will need to engage an administrator, an auditor, a broker/prime broker (if investing in securities on a securities exchange), a digital asset exchange (if trading in digital assets), a custodian, lawyer, etc.  It is important for the manager to work with service providers who are comfortable with the tokenized aspects of the fund.  Sometimes some fund managers will have two sets of attorneys for the fund launch – one set devoted to the standard fund aspects and one set devoted to the tokenized aspects. Where managers engage two sets of counsel, it is paramount each group of attorneys is in sync with the other to ensure proper compliance with securities laws.

Regulation – managers of tokenized funds will need to consider all of the same regulatory items that apply to normal funds.  These items include:

  • RIA or CPO/CTA registration – there may be a requirement for the manager to obtain certain licenses based on the fund’s underlying investments or economic activity; for example, RIA registration is required if the manager invests in securities and CPO/CTA registration is required if the fund transacts in futures or commodities.  
  • Regulation D – the manager will need to determine whether to utilize Section 506(b) or Section 506(c).  Section 506(c) allows for general solicitation and many tokenized fund managers choose this safe harbor despite there being additional investor qualification requirements.  [Note: some funds may try to tokenize via the Regulation A process, but we don’t think this is optimal.]
  • Form D and blue sky filings – as with a normal fund, after fund interests have been sold, the manager will also need to make sure to make Form D and blue sky filings.
  • Investment Company Act – the manager will need to choose whether to have the fund use the 3c1 or 3c7 exemptions. 
  • Investor qualifications – based potentially on whether the fund will be 3c1 or 3c7, the investors may need to have accredited investor status, qualified client status, or qualified purchaser status.
  • Other items to be aware about – AML/KYC (standard in subscription documents, though there should be heightened AML/KYC practices when launching a tokenized product), adequate description of conflicts of interest, whether the fund will be subject to ERISA, making sure marketing materials are accurate, etc.

Token Specific Aspects of a Tokenized Fund

While the many similarities between the two types of funds are clear, there are specific technical items to consider with respect to the tokenized fund.

What blockchain? – perhaps this is going to be the most important technical question for the manager and will influence the characteristics and usefulness of the fund token.  Normally this part is determined by the manager after discussion with their tech team (internal or external) and then relayed to the attorney.  It will be very important for the manager to detail all technical aspects of the generation and potential movement of the fund token to the attorney for appropriate legal analysis. 

When and how are tokens created? – mechanically the fund tokens will need to be generated pursuant to some sort of token creation protocol.  This will depend on other qualities of the fund token including how whitelisting (discussed below) will be done, what blockchain is being utilized, and whether the fund token will interact with certain smart contracts.  

Smart contracts? – depending on the native blockchain and functionality of the fund tokens, managers may choose to allow the fund tokens to interact with certain smart contracts.  The ability for investors to use fund tokens to interact with smart contracts is one of the potential emerging use cases of the fund tokenization process.  Managers should understand what the smart contracts will be doing, and care must be taken such that at all points in the smart contract process all applicable laws and regulations are followed.  The use of whitelisting, among other safeguarding techniques, is a common tool to comply with securities laws among other purposes.  Obviously allowing smartcontract functionality with the fund tokens will increase various technical and legal risks with respect to the fund tokens. 

Transfers and Whitelists – one of the reasons to tokenize private investment fund interests is to allow for easier transfer between token holders through a faster speed of settlement as well as the potential creation of a more robust secondary market.  As these fund tokens represent private fund interests (or only certain features of private fund interests in some cases), any transfers require compliance with all applicable securities regulations and laws.  This means that like in the traditional fund context, the tokenized fund manager will need to continually understand the fund’s investor base (for example: accredited investor, qualified client, qualified purchaser status, number of purchasers/holders, etc,) and may need to be aware of other items as well (holding periods, AML/KYC, etc.) in order to conform to applicable securities laws and regulations.  

Like with traditional funds, the manager ultimately still approves transfers of fund tokens (representing fund interests), even when the transfer is done on the blockchain.  To aid with this, most tokenized funds will need to have some kind of a whitelist of wallet addresses (where the manager knows the identity of the person and/or entity that controls the whitelisted wallet address). This knowledge allows the manager to make sure that any fund token transfers are between parties whom the manager knows and/or are investors in the fund.  Any transfer of the fund tokens needs to abide by securities laws and regulations and the utilization of a whitelist helps the manager ensure compliance.

Offshore lawyers/ jurisdiction – there are two ways that offshore lawyers are important to the tokenized fund launch process.  The first is with respect to normal offshore structuring in the event the fund will have non-US investors.  The second way deals with the jurisdiction of the token itself.  Many times there will be a foundation or other offshore entity that issues the token.  The foundation may or may not be the token issuing entity.  In many cases, the token issuing entity is likely to be an offshore company and offshore counsel is needed in the creation of this entity.

No NY investors in a tokenized fund – it is likely that tokenized funds run afoul of the New York bitlicense requirement.  Unless a manager goes through the process to obtain a bitlicense in New York, the manager will need to make sure that there are no New York resident investors in the fund. Given the potential of each state to implement similar regulations, your choice of counsel should remain up-to-date about all such regulatory regimes.

Tax – on the fund side, these vehicles are taxed like normal private fund vehicles and generally are structured to act as passthroughs for US taxable investors and as “blockers” for non-US investors.  On the investor side, care needs to be taken with respect to any transfers of the fund tokens.  Investors should also talk with tax counsel before using the fund tokens in smart-contracts or other programs because there may be certain tax consequences.  The IRS has been slow to issue guidance, and the asset class is novel and kinetic, so we urge managers to connect with tax counsel throughout the structuring process.

Limitations

Some of the limitations of tokenized fund products stems from uncertain regulatory regimes like the New York Bit License requirement and other states’ similar regulatory regimes. Additionally, the cost and expense of developing the fund token on the blockchain, retaining a tech team, engaging and potentially educating service providers, and the constant regulatory scrutiny of digital assets in general may make fund tokenization unattractive for certain groups. While any private investment fund in any asset class has the potential to become tokenized, groups should internally assess whether tokenization makes sense for the product seeking to be launched.

Specific risks of tokenized funds 

The tokenized fund has both standard risks associated with a private fund, as well risks related solely to the tokenized aspect.  Standard risks include operation of the fund structure, general risks with respect to trading/investment program (including normal liquidity), standard legal and regulatory risks, etc.  In addition to those risks, the following will be applicable to tokenized funds:

  • Unclear regulations – investment adviser, IRS, etc
  • Risk related to the technology (blockchain generally, DeFi, smart contracts, hacks, private keys, malicious actors, network outages and bugs)
  • Token units may have a different “value” than the underlying NAV related to the fund interest, depending on how the manager operates the private fund

Cost and Timing 

Tokenized funds are inherently more resource-intensive to launch given the various structuring components and specialization of the service providers.  Timing for a launch will also be longer than a traditional fund launch to allow for coordination between the lawyers, manager, operations, and technical fund token deployment teams.  A good rule of thumb is that a tokenized fund will probably cost about twice as much in both cost and time than would apply for a non-tokenized fund product.

Issues and Conclusion

Tokenized funds are new vehicles and with any new structure (and unclear regulatory guidance), there are going to be issues that pop up during the launch process.  As discussed above, most issues are likely to be with respect to the mechanical or technical aspects of tokenizing the fund (as opposed to the drafting of the fund offering documents and legal agreements).  We recommend taking more time on the front end to make sure all of the service providers truly understand how the fund token will work during all stages of the token lifecycle – it is vital for the technical functionality of the token is understood and appropriately disclosed in applicable documents.

By some accounts, tokenized funds will become a big part of the future financial world.  If it comes to pass that there is and continues to be a compelling use case for tokenizing a private fund, then we believe that this process will become more and more streamlined.  But, tokenized funds are still novel and relatively untested and complete functionality with respect to a token’s potential will be limited by applicable laws/regulations.  These structures will continue to develop both in standardization in terms of process, cost and timing as more groups seek to tokenized private fund products, and in functionality as more people come to the digital asset space and try to do new and novel things. 

We are very early in this space and are excited for the future.  If you have any questions on how to tokenized a private fund, please contact us or call Bart Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

****

Bart Mallon, co-founder of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, has established himself as a leader in the private fund space for digital assets and has helped to launch some of the first tokenized private funds.  For more information on his practice please see his bio or reach out to him directly at 415-868-5345.

Malhar Oza works as Counsel at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP and assists clients on various operational, transactional and regulatory matters related to digital assets, including fund formation (domestic and offshore). Malhar also counsels crypto managers, investment advisers, digital asset fund managers, and other members of the digital asset investment management industry on complex compliance matters related to state and federal securities laws. He also specializes in launching tokenized fund products, including closed-end and evergreen private investment funds.  To contact Malhar, please email him at [email protected] or give him a call at 415-762-2879.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Hedge Funds

Leave a reply

Overview of AI in Investment Management

Hedge funds utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) have increasingly gained attention as technology continues to be a driving force behind large and fundamental changes in the investment management and financial industries. For most groups in this space, AI hedge funds represent a new way to process information and ultimately to use that information to execute various investment strategies. This post discusses the various structural, regulatory, and operational issues that arise for managers who utilize an AI strategy in their hedge fund.

Foundational Items – AI Definition in this Context

Many will liken AI funds to quant strategies which operate on algorithms without human intervention (and probably most AI funds will have programs to automate all trading) but AI is not necessarily quant – AI really is the process behind the selection of investments.  Artificial intelligence fund strategies cannot be grouped into one category and there are not specific AI investments – instead, managers utilize AI with respect to their strategy.  So an AI hedge fund may be focused on certain sectors, may be long/short, short only, etc.  Many AI programs are going to be based on long/short strategies in the large cap space because there is going to be the widest possible universe of data points and liquidity, but this is not a requirement.  We would imagine that over time as AI programs have more experience and have learned more, the programs would migrate into other investment universes and trading strategies.

Structural Considerations

AI programs are likely to be focused on liquid markets with large investment universes so the structure is likely to be basic and straightforward.

·  Hedge Fund or Private Equity Strategy.  At this point in time we have only seen AI deployed in the public markets space so most strategies are going to be utilizing the more liquid hedge fund structure.  Some AI inventors may have expertise in other areas related to technology and those areas may be ripe for early stage investments which might make for good side pocket investments (including cryptocurrencies / altcoins).  Given what we see as investor appetite for the AI itself, and not necessarily the manager’s specific expertise in other technological areas, we believe that side pocket type structures in an AI hedge fund strategy are, and will continue to be, rare in the near term.

·  Fund Terms.  Fund terms will be linked to the strategy.  As we expect most AI programs to be long/short, large cap strategies, the fund terms are likely to be basic and are likely to have favorable liquidity terms because of the liquidity profile of the strategy and the (potential) investor unease with a strategy being implemented with an AI paradigm.  Contributions will normally be accepted monthly as is standard with more standard trading programs.  Fee terms may be favorable, especially based on the recent trend toward lower fees for hedge fund products – low management fees can always be offset by higher performance fees in a tiered performance fee structure.  Right now AI strategies may utilize leverage and we have seen a number of groups do this.

·  Onshore / Offshore Structures.  There is nothing about an AI fund structure which would materially change any decision with respect to an onshore or offshore structure.  In general, a fund complex will only maintain only a U.S. fund if there are only U.S. investors; if there are non-U.S. investors (or U.S. tax exempt investors, if the manager is utilizing leverage) then the structure will be a master-feeder structure or a mini-master structure.  We currently have only had experience with AI in the liquid securities space, but if programs move to other instruments that are illiquid or have tax characteristics different from publicly traded securities, then the onshore / offshore structure should be reviewed.

Business, Regulatory and Other Considerations for AI Hedge Funds

Whereas other strategies may have instrument-related issues to consider, AI programs have a host of technological, oversight, regulatory and perhaps most important, intellectual property, issues to consider.

·  Intellectual Property.  Identification of and protection of intellectual property will be a central concern to the AI manager (as it would be with the quant manager) and we have discussed a number of these issues below. [Note: this section written in conjunction with Bill Samuels, an expert in IP issues and of counsel to Cole-Frieman & Mallon.]

Ownership of AI Code – many times the AI code will originally be developed by an individual (or individuals) and then tested on data sets and tweaked.  Therefore ownership of the code will reside in the individual who created the code.  Once in final form the individual may assign the AI code to an IP holding company that will then license the AI code to the management company and/or fund.

License Agreement – in the event the IP holding company licenses the code to the management company and/or the fund, terms of any license agreement will depend on the needs of the manager and the fund structure as a whole, but the following are common issues which will be addressed: exclusivity/non-exclusivity, ownership (including of derivative works), fees, term, termination.  Each of these issues has a number of sub-issues and other items to consider and a manager should discuss this license agreement with their attorney very carefully.

Copyright and Patent Considerations – while the actual code underlying the AI program cannot be patented, it can be copyrighted.  The copyright protects the actual code, but the conceptual framework of the code cannot necessarily be protected.  If the code interacts with the AI program in such a way that the implantation is somehow improved, then the implementation of the software may be able to be patented.  For these reasons, managers are very sensitive about protecting who can see their code, but may be able to protect themselves (potentially) through a patent.

Employee or Contractor Considerations – managers will want to protect their AI code and will need to be careful with employees and independent contractors and therefore most managers will enter into written agreements with anyone involved in the development or improvement or implementation of the code.  These agreements will normally specify that any code produced (as well as any derivative and resulting code) belongs to the manager (or the IP holding company).

Data Set Terms – when developing AI, many managers will use large data sets to begin the learning process.  Managers should make sure that they understand the terms of the license and the rights of the data owner with respect to anything derived from use of the data sets.  The big point is to make sure that the manager has the rights to any resulting manipulation and development of the data and that the manager is aware of any other person’s right to the resulting information.

Safeguarding of Code – some firms will choose to safeguard their code in some way.  Although safeguarding is not strictly necessary, there are software escrow companies that can hold code specifically for licenses and demonstrating ownership. As mentioned above, managers may choose to secure copyright registration on source code, redacting any sections that are trade secrets.

·  Technology and the Prime Broker – there are a number of issues with respect to the implementation of the AI program with the prime broker.  The manager will work with the broker’s API to integrate their trading system with the prime – managers should be aware of any triggering events (drawdown, leverage, etc) that could affect normal trading of the AI, and the manager should create infrastructure for monitoring such events and perhaps such events should be integrated into the code.  The manager should also examine what kind of human overrides the program will have if the program is an automated trading program.  Many managers also are concerned with reverse engineering by a prime broker.

·  Reverse Engineering – this has traditionally been an issue for large quant managers so many decided to use multiple prime brokers to try to hide how their quant algorithms work.  AI managers, likewise, could be susceptible to reverse engineering and may want to think about multiple prime brokers.  The confidential information provisions of any prime brokerage agreement (PBA) then become very important.  At a minimum, AI fund managers should include language in the PBA specifically noting that the broker will not reverse engineer or create derivate works on the clients confidential information.

·  Regulation of Management Company – management companies implementing AI programs are subject to the normal forms of regulation for management companies investing in securities and futures/commodities.  Generally, if the AI hedge fund trades securities and has less than $150M in AUM, the management company will be subject to state-level securities regulations – in general the management company will need to register as an investment adviser with the state or claim an exemption from registration.  If the AI hedge fund trades securities and has more than $150M in AUM, the management company will be subject registration with the SEC.  If the AI hedge fund trades futures/commodities, the standard CPO/CTA exemptions are in place.

·  Future Regulation of Use of AI?  Both the SEC and CFTC have made minor mention of artificial intelligence when discussing technology and the investment markets.  FINRA has begun to look into artificial intelligence (see here) and broadly puts this under its FinTech focus.  We believe that these regulatory bodies will continue to explore how AI technologies work in the various marketplaces and we believe that there will eventually be specifically regulations about the use of AI in trading.  Managers should note, that while there are not specifically AI regulations, manager using AI are still subject to the same regulations as managers utlitizing only human intelligence.

·  Compliance Considerations for AI Managers – managers utilizing AI should have robust compliance systems in place.  Managers will either have in-house personnel devoted to implementing their compliance program or should think about utilizing outside compliance consultants.  In addition to normal investment advisor regulatory considerations, manager will also want to have trading level compliance systems in place – for example, if the manager trades futures, the manager should have position limit systems in place.

·  Other Items.  Other items for an AI fund manager to consider include the specific risks to be disclosed with respect to the AI; as mentioned above, most risks are related to the strategy and with respect to the technology in general.  There may be specific risks associated with a certain AI program though.  With respect to other fund service providers to the AI fund, there should not be any issues.

Conclusion

As some of the world’s largest asset managers are beginning to utilize artificial intelligence with respect to their investing (see here and here), and some of the largest tech companies in the world are placing a focus on developing AI (see here about Google’s “AI-first” world), we are entering the very beginning phase of a new world where AI is an integral part of our lives and the financial markets.

****

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first AI hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Cannabis Hedge Funds

Leave a reply

Overview of Private Fund Investment in the Marijuana Industry

After the elections of 2016, eight states and the District of Columbia have laws allowing for the recreational use of marijuana. Many other states have decriminalized the use of marijuana and most allow the use of medical marijuana. From the standpoint of the investment management industry, the expansion of the market for cannabis has created a new category of potential investments. Private investment funds that focus on this industry (so called marijuana or cannabis hedge funds) are still relatively rare but we anticipate that they are in the early stages of developing into a strong sector strategy moving forward. This post is designed to provide an overview of the structure and regulatory considerations for these vehicles.

Structural Considerations

In general, the structure of a cannabis hedge fund will be substantially the same as a standard hedge fund, with some minor items to keep in mind. Structurally, managers will focus on the type of strategy they will deploy, the investment terms for that strategy and whether to use offshore structures.

• Hedge Funds or Private Equity Strategy. Each manager in the space will have their own idea of what would make an attractive investment in this space. If a manager is planning to make investments in companies that are publicly traded, then the fund structure will be the same as a traditional hedge fund (more liquidity, annual performance allocation). If a manager is interested in making investments directly into companies that are not publicly traded, then the fund structure will likely be private equity style (no liquidity, distributions only on disposition events). Many managers will find that their industry expertise will help them find attractive opportunities in both spaces and so these managers will most likely do some sort of combination structure—essentially a hedge fund with side pockets.

• Fund Terms. Whichever structure is used, the terms are going to be substantially similar to other hedge funds and managers will need to determine what contribution schedule, redemption schedule, leverage amount, if any, and what other investment terms will work for their fund. Because of the industry focus, we’ve seen some groups form advisory boards. We’ve also seen groups who have decided to create SPV structures under the fund to facilitate direct investments, to navigate the regulatory landscape, or to create greater shields from liability.

• Onshore / Offshore Structures. Whether to use an offshore structure will be determined mostly by the jurisdiction of investors in the fund. Like a normal private fund, if there are no offshore investors, then a standard domestic fund will usually be sufficient; if there will be offshore investors or if manager intends to use leverage and have IRA or 401k investors, an offshore structure will normally be utilized. If an offshore structure is used, the choice will generally be between the mini-master structure  and the master-feeder structure. In general, the manager will not want to create a standalone offshore structure if they are doing PE-style investments because of the likelihood that such investment would be deemed to be involved in a US trade or business, subject to additional tax planning. In addition to structure, managers will need to decide on offshore counsel and many managers will engage independent directors.  These items will be discussed with counsel during the formation process.

Regulatory and Other Considerations for Marijuana Fund Managers

While structuring of the fund and drafting of the fund documents will be fairly straightforward, there are some other operational issues for cannabis fund managers to keep in mind.

• Regulation of Management Company. Like a normal hedge or PE fund manager, the management company to a cannabis fund would be deemed to be an investment adviser because the manager would receive compensation for providing advice regarding investment in securities. As any normal investment adviser, the manager would need to determine whether to register under the state or SEC regimes or whether the manager could utilize an exemption from registration.

• Federal Legal Issues. There are two federal laws that impact investment managers in the cannabis industry:

Controlled Substances Act (CSA) – Notwithstanding minor federal action to the contrary (i.e. the “Cole Memos”), marijuana is still deemed to be a Schedule 1 controlled substance under federal law. While unlikely, it is possible that marijuana businesses abiding by state law could be subject to federal action with respect to the manufacturing and dispensing of the product. [Note: the above was accurate during the Obama administration; the Trump administration has indicated that federal action may occur.] Federal sanctions under the CSA are harsh and include jail time and fines.

Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) – Perhaps a bigger issue for the cannabis industry are the issues that arise under the BSA. The BSA provides a framework that banks must follow with respect to certain suspicious activity. Because marijuana is still classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, banks are technically required to report the activity of their clients in the cannabis industry to the U.S. Treasury. This sort of red tape, and the potential for liability to the bank for helping to facilitate this activity, makes banks less likely to deal with groups in this space. Although fund managers are a step removed from any growing or selling operations, we have generally found that managers will need to spend time finding a bank that is comfortable with the potential risks of holding the fund’s cash. Ultimately as the industry grows and federal law loosens (if they do), we believe the banking industry will come around. We have recently heard of groups who are trying to work on a bitcoin-type payment system for the cannabis industry.

• State Laws. For states that now allow the recreational use of marijuana, there generally are a number of laws and regulations that both operating companies and fund managers must keep in mind. The laws and regulations will generally be implemented by a state regulatory body that will have the power to determine the manner in which leaf-based products (including seeds) are brought to market. Non-leaf based products (such as paraphernalia) generally will be subject to lesser or no scrutiny under state law.

• Investment Size. Many private companies in the industry are new and subject to the same kinds of operational risks that apply to businesses in other industries. Additionally, these private companies are small and not yet able to deploy capital from large equity investments. In this way, fund projects tend to be on the smaller side because of capital constraints.

• Service Providers. Some groups, especially audit firms, may be reticent to provide services to groups who focus on investments into this sector. As mentioned above, banking may be also be an issue for managers in this space. Some groups also may decide that there are specific issues they need to discuss with cannabis legal counsel.

• Valuation. As with any private investment fund that deals with investments into non-publicly traded securities, a cannabis fund with investments in private companies may have to deal with valuation issues of the investments. To a certain degree, many issues can be side-stepped if the manager institutes side pockets, but this will be an area where the manager will want to discuss options with fund counsel as well as fund accountants and auditors.

Conclusion

The marijuana/cannabis industry undoubtedly will become huge over time as more states allow recreational use of marijuana. Although currently still in its infancy, the cannabis industry is poised for significant growth and eventually capital will flow towards managers who focus on this space. While we would have predicted that there would be significantly more private funds focused on this area by now, we anticipate that this will be a strong and growing sector over the coming years as more states legalize the recreational use of the drug and the infrastructure around both companies and assets managers in this space becomes more institutionalized.

****
Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP and helped establish one of the first cannabis-focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Business Development Company (BDC) Overview and Formation

Leave a reply

What is a Business Development Company?

Business Development Companies (“BDCs”) are a type of publicly-traded closed-end fund that are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”). BDCs are designed to facilitate the raising of capital by small, developing, and financially troubled companies that historically lacked access to the public capital markets. A BDC is required to make available “significant managerial assistance” to the companies in which it invests including management and operational assistance. As such, BDCs are not intended to be passive investment vehicles. BDCs make investments in the form of long-term debt or equity capital with the goal of generating capital appreciation and/or current income. In recent years, a number of private equity managers have also launched BDCs as a means of accessing public capital.

BDC Advantages

BDCs are preferable to other investment funds for a number of reasons:

  • Unlike mutual funds and other open-end funds, BDCs provide the same liquidity to investors as other publicly traded investments.
  • BDC investors are not limited to “qualified purchasers” and investors need not meet income and net worth requirements.
  • BDC managers have access to permanent capital that is not subject to shareholder redemption.
  • Unlike other registered fund managers, BDC managers may charge performance fees (e.g. “2 and 20” incentive fees).

BDC Limitations

BDCs are subject to a number of restrictions and limitations including the following:

  • BDCs must maintain low leverage – total debt may not exceed total equity.
  • BDCs are restricted in their ability to enter into transactions with affiliates.
  • BDCs must adopt and implement policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the federal securities laws and must appoint a chief compliance officer to administer these policies and procedures.
  • No single BDC investment can account for more than 25% of total holdings and 70% of all assets must be invested within a limited number of categories.
  • BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings quarterly.

Permissible Investments

Section 55 of the 1940 Act requires that a BDC invest at least 70% of its total assets in the following:

  • Privately issued securities purchased from issuers that are “eligible portfolio companies;”
  • Securities of eligible portfolio companies that are controlled by a BDC and of which an affiliated person of the BDC is a director;
  • Privately issued securities of companies subject to a bankruptcy proceeding, reorganization, insolvency or similar proceeding or otherwise unable to meet their obligations without material assistance;
  • Cash, cash items, government securities or high quality debt securities maturing in one year or less; and
  • Office furniture and equipment, interests in real estate and other similar non-investment assets incidental to the BDC’s operations.

Tax Treatment

BDCs are typically organized as limited partnerships or Subchapter M regulated investment companies in order to obtain pass-through tax treatment. Distributions to shareholders are taxable as either ordinary income or capital gains in the same manner as distributions from mutual funds.

BDC Formation

To become a BDC, a company must file Form N-6 with the SEC (intent to file a notification of election). Then, a company must file a notice on Form N-54A indicating that it elects to be regulated as a BDC under the 1940 Act. In order to elect to be regulated as a BDC, a company must register its equity securities under Section 12 of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This registration requires BDCs to periodically file Form 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K as well as proxy statements with the SEC. A BDC must also register its securities under the Securities Act of 1933 by preparing and filing a Form N-2 registration statement which describes essential information about the BDC to help investors make informed investment decisions. The registration statement must disclose (i) the terms of the offering including number of shares and price, (ii) the intended use of the proceeds, (iii) investment objectives and strategies, (iv) risks associated with the investment, and (v) a description of the BDC’s management.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, an investment management law firm which provides legal services to the hedge fund industry. Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Qualified Eligible Person (QEP) Definition

3 Replies

The securities laws can be written obtusely and the definition of a qualified eligible person (QEP) may be one of the best examples of this.  There is no quick and easy definition of a what a QEP is so we are trying to make it as easy as possible to understand.  This post discusses the importance of the classification, provides the overview of the definition and then provides a link to the actual statutory language.

Why QEP Definition is Important for CPOs

The definition of QEP is important for commodity pool operators (CPOs) in a couple of situations.  The first is the 4.13(a)(4) exemption from the registration provisions for a CPO that provides advice to a commodity pool with only QEPs.  The second situation where a CPO will need to make sure the investors are QEPs is if they want to take advantage of the Rule 4.7 exemption.  The Rule 4.7 exemption allows CPOs to follow less-strict reporting requirements with regard to the commodity pool they manage.  These two exemptions essentially provide for reduced regulatory oversight of a CPO who provides advisory services to these class of investors.

Definition of QEP

A qualified eligible person is an investor who fits into one of two distinct groups: (1) investors who do not need to meet the portfolio requirement and (2) investors who need to meet the portfolio requirement.

1.  Investors who do not need to meet the portfolio requirement:

The following are considered to be QEPs regardless of whether or not they meet the portfolio requirement:

  • registered futures commission merchants
  • registered broker or dealers
  • registered commodity pool operators (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)
  • registered commodity trading advisors (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)
  • state or SEC registered investment advisers (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)
  • qualified purchasers
  • knowledgeable employee of the CPOs
  • certain persons related to advisers to exempt from registration as a CPO or CTA
  • trusts (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)
  • 501(c)(3) organizations (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)
  • non-United States persons
  • certain entities in which all of the owners/participants are QEPs

2.  Investors who need to meet the portfolio requirement:

The following will be considered to be QEPs only if they meet the portfolio requirement described below:

  • investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act (i.e. mutual funds)
  • certain business development companies (defined under both the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act)
  • banks, savings and loan associations, and other like institutions acting for their own accounts or for the account of a QEP
  • insurance companies acting for their own account or for the account of a qualified eligible person
  • plans established and maintained by various governments and related bodies for the benefit of their employees, if such plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000
  • employee benefit plans within the meaning of the ERISA (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)
  • 501(c)(3) organizations with total assets in excess of $5,000,000
  • corporations, business trusts, partnerships, LLCs or similar business ventures with total assets in excess of $5,000,000 and not formed for the specific purpose of participating in the exempt investment program
  • a natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of either his purchase in the exempt pool or his opening of an exempt account exceeds $1,000,000 [HFLB note: this is one part of the accredited investor definition]
  • a natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year [HFLB note: this is one part of the accredited investor definition]
  • pools, trusts, insurance company separate accounts or bank collective trusts, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000 (under certain conditions, see below)
  • other entities authorized by law to engage in such transactions (under certain conditions, see rule for more details)

3.  Portfolio Requirement

If an investor is one of the entities described in (2) above, it will also need to meet the portfolio requirement.  The portfolio requirement can be met in one of three ways:

  • Owns securities and other investments with an aggregate market value of at least $2MM;
  • Has had on deposit with a FCM at least $200K in exchange-specified initial margin and option premiums for commodity interest transactions in the 6 months prior to the investment; or
  • Has a combination of the two above.  For example, has $1MM in securities/investments and $100K in exchange-specified initial margin in the 6 months prior to the investment

The above definitions have been shortened for the purpose of providing a general overview.  When determining whether an investor meets the qualified eligible person definition the CPO should take special care to make sure that the investor meets the full definition which can be found here.  Generally the investor will make these representations in the subscription documents which are drafted by the hedge fund attorney.

****

Other related Hedge Fund Law Blog articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Hedge Funds, the Secondary Market and PTP Issues

1 Reply

Secondary Hedge Fund Market Poses Issues for Fund Managers

Recently there have been a number of groups springing up to provide a secondary hedge fund market.  While such platforms provide investors with a potential avenue to get out of their illiquid investment (the investment in the fund may be illiquid for a number of reasons including the imposition of a gate provision), they pose problems for the hedge fund manager who will have to deal with the mechanical issues involved in a transfer of the fund interests.  Additionally, as noted in the article below, the manager may have to worry about the PTP issues involved with such potential transfer.

The following article was written by Doug Cornelius of the Compliance Building blog and is reprinted with permission.  All links in the article are from the original.

****

Classification of Private Funds as Publicly Traded Partnerships

Due to the increasing incidence of fund investors who want to transfer their investment fund interests, private investment funds face a risk of being classified as publicly traded partnerships. That would mean the fund would become taxable as a corporation.

A bad result.

Under Internal Revenue Code § 7704, a partnership will be classified as a publicly traded partnership if (1) the fund interests are traded on an established securities market or (2) the fund interests are readily tradable on a secondary market or its substantial equivalent.

The big problem is determining when you have a “substantial equivalent” of a secondary market. Under the regulations, the IRS uses a facts and circumstances test to determine if “partners are readily able to buy, sell, or exchange their partnership interests in a manner that is comparable, economically, to trading on an established securities market.” You hate to get into a facts and circumstances discussion with the IRS.

Fortunately there are some safeguards in the implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. § 1.7704-1.

Involvement of the Partnership

For purposes of section 7704(b), interests in a partnership are not readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent unless (1) The partnership participates in the establishment of the market or (2) The partnership recognizes any transfers made on the market by (i) redeeming the transferor partner or (ii) admitting the transferee as a partner.

Since most fund partnerships require the general partner to approve the the transferee and then admit the transferee, they are unlikely to be able to take advantage of this safe harbor.

De Minimis Trading Safeharbor

The focus of a fund should be on the 2% de minimis safe harbor. 26 C.F.R. § 1.7704-1(j) provides for interests in a partnership to be deemed not readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof if the sum of the percentage interests in partnership capital or profits transferred during the taxable year of the partnership does not exceed 2 percent of the total interests in partnership capital or profits.

You want avoid having more than 2 percent of the partnership interests changing hands each tax year.

If you get close to that number there are several transfers that are disregarded transfers for this safeharbor, including:

  • block transfers by a single partner of more than 2% of the total interests
  • intrafamily transfers
  • transfers at death
  • distributions from a qualified retirement plan
  • Transfers by one or more partners of interests representing  50 percent or more of the total interests in partnership

Private Placement Safeharbor

The regulations deem a transfer to not be a trade if it was a private placement. But the regulations have their own definition of a private placement: (1) the issuance of the partnership interests had to be exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933,  and (2) the partnership does not have more than 100 partners at any time during the tax year of the partnership. 26 C.F.R. § 1.7704-1(h)

The first prong should be straight-forward for most private funds. The trickier part is the second prong. In some circumstances the IRS can look through the holder of a partnership interest to its beneficial owners and expand the number of partners to include the beneficial holders of that interest.

Passive Income Safeharbor

If a fund is determined to be a Publicly Traded Partnership, it will nonetheless not be taxed as a corporation if 90% or more of the fund’s gross income is passive-type income. [26 U.S.C. § 7704(c)] Passive-type income generally includes dividends, real property rents, gains from the sale of real property, income from mining and oil and gas properties, gains from the sale of capital assets held to produce income, and gains from commodities (not held primarily for sale in the ordinary course of business), futures, forwards, or options with respect to commodities. The income test is on a taxable year basis and must be have been met each prior year.

References:

****

Please also see the post on hedge fund compliance and twitter which includes another reprint of a Compliance Building article.

Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog.  He can be reached 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.

Proposed Hedge Fund Registration Bill Now Excludes VC Funds

2 Replies

Venture Capital Funds May Not Have to Register with Hedge Funds

While hedge funds have reluctantly resigned to the likely fate of SEC registration (see MFA Supports Registration), the venture capital community has been fighting hard to remain unregistered.  On this front, the VC community enjoyed a victory last week as Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) proposed an amendment to the Obama administration’s Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009 (“PFIARA”).  The new proposed bill provides an exemption from registration for certain managers to “venture capital funds” as that term will be defined by the SEC.  The following section provides the full wording of the new exemption and I end this posts with some of my thoughts on this exemption.

Venture Capital Fund Registration Exemption

The following section has replaced the previous section 6 (which now becomes section 7).  Besides this change the PFIARA remains the same.

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.’’.

Discussion of the Exemption

From a political perspective, I am actually pretty surprised that this was added to the bill.  First, I find it interesting that a bill named the “Private Fund” registration act (not “Hedge Fund” registration act) would then exempt certain private funds.  Second, it is curious that the drafter left it to the SEC to create a definition of “venture capital fund” – it will be interesting to see how the SEC interprets this Congressional mandate.  Finally, it is also curious that VC funds are specifically exempted and potentially not private equity funds.  Generally VC funds are regarded as a type of private equity fund – presumably the SEC could fix this by creating a very broad definition for “venture capital funds” which would also include private equity.  Unfortunately this puts the SEC in a difficult position as they will now have to deal with the politics of creating definitions.

We will keep you up to date on this and other bills. Please also remember that this current version of the bill is subject to future change.

For the full proposed bill, please see: Hedge Fund Registration Bill – No VC Registration

****

10/1/09: Kanjorski Releases Financial Reform Drafts on Investor Protection, Private Advisor Registration

Capital Markets Chairman Addresses Key Pieces of Financial Regulatory Reform Through Comprehensive Bills and Administration Input

WASHINGTON – Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, today released discussion drafts of three pieces of legislation aimed at tackling key parts of reforming the regulatory structure of the U.S. financial services industry.  The draft bills include the Investor Protection Act, the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act, and the Federal Insurance Office Act.

Chairman Kanjorski introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year and in the last Congress to create a federal insurance office, which was backed by the Obama Administration and included in its proposals for financial services regulatory reform.  Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, joined as an original co-sponsor of the 2009 bill when it was first introduced.  Chairman Kanjorski also worked to revise and significantly enhance the Investor Protection Act and the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act proposed by the Obama Administration this summer.

“Today, we take another step forward in overhauling the regulatory structure of the financial services industry,” said Chairman Kanjorski.  “With these three bills we will address many of the shortcomings and loopholes laid bare by the current financial crisis.  The Investor Protection Act will better protect investors and increase the funding and enforcement powers of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  We must ensure that investor confidence continues to increase for the betterment of our financial system.

“Additionally, we need to ensure that everyone who swims in our capital markets has an annual pool pass.  The Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act will force many more financial providers to register with the SEC.  Many financial firms skirt government oversight and get away like bandits, but now the advisers to hedge funds, private equity firms, and other private pools of capital would become subject to more scrutiny by the SEC.

“Finally, bipartisan legislation which I first introduced in the last Congress to create a federal insurance office to fill a gap in the federal government’s knowledge base on financial activities.  For several years, including in this Congress, I have worked to advance bipartisan legislation to address this issue, and I am pleased that the Administration also understands the need for this office and welcome the refinements they suggested to my bill.”

Summaries of the three legislative discussion drafts follow:

…

Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act

Everyone Registers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. By mandating the registration of private advisers to hedge funds and other 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.

http://kanjorski.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1627&Itemid=1

****

THE NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION APPLAUDS VENTURE CAPITAL EXEMPTION LANGUAGE IN DRAFT OF PRIVATE FUND INVESTMENT ADVISERS REGISTRATION ACT

Washington D.C., October 1, 2009 —

The following statement is attributed to Mark G. Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association:

“The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) applauds the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act proposal announced today by Representative Paul Kanjorski (DPA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Capital Markets Subcommittee. We are extremely appreciative of the work done in drafting this legislation by the Subcommittee and Members of the full Committee under the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank (DMA). This proposal recognizes that venture capital firms do not pose systemic financial risk and that requiring them to register under the Advisers Act would place an undue burden on the venture industry and the entrepreneurial community. The venture capital industry supports a level of transparency which gives policy makers ongoing comfort in assessing risk. The NVCA is committed to working with Congress, the SEC and the Administration on the most effective implementation of this proposal.

We look forward to sharing specific thoughts with Members of the Committee on Tuesday, October 6 when NVCA Chairman Terry McGuire is scheduled to testify at the hearing, “Capital Markets Regulatory Reform: Strengthening Investor Protection, Enhancing Oversight of Private Pools of Capital, and Creating a National Insurance Office.” The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) represents more than 400 venture capital firms in the United States. NVCA’s mission is to foster greater understanding of the importance of venture capital to the U.S. economy and support entrepreneurial activity and innovation. According to a 2009 Global Insight study, venture-backed companies accounted for 12.1 million jobs and $2.9 trillion in revenue in the United States in 2006.

The NVCA represents the public policy interests of the venture capital community, strives to maintain high professional standards, provides reliable industry data, sponsors professional development, and facilitates interaction among its members. For more information about the NVCA, please visit www.nvca.org.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/discussion_draft_of_the_private_fund_investment_advisors_registration_act.pdf

****

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 415-296-8510.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Investment Advisory Fees | Hedge Fund Performance Fees and Management Fees

4 Replies

Review of State Investment Advisory Fee Rules

One of the things I have tried to emphasize within this blog is that there is no “one size fits all” legal solution to hedge fund formation.  Each client/manager has a unique set of circumstances and will be subject to a potentially different sets of laws or regulations depending on those circumstances.  This is especially true with regard to those managers who must register in a state that requires hedge fund manager registration.  Because no two sets of state laws and regulations are the same, the manager must make sure that he understands the rules which are specific to his state.

High Asset Management Fees and Disclosure

One issue which comes up every now and again is whether or not disclosure will be required when the manager charges an annual asset management fee in excess of 3% of AUM.  Generally regulators will require that certain disclosures be made to investors through the manager’s disclosure documents (generally in both the Form ADV and the hedge fund offering documents).  Sometimes the regulator will require such disclosures based on a general provision (see CO IA fee rule discussion below) or on more explicit provisions (see 116.13(a) of the Texas Administrative Code).  In either case managers will generally be required to make a prominent disclosure to investors that a 3% (or higher) annual asset management fee is in excess of industry norms and that similar advisory services may be obtained for less (whether or not this is true).  While such a disclosure would, in most instances, be a best practice, managers should be aware that it may also be required if they are registered with a particular state.

State Performance Fee Rules

Like management fee disclosures, the rules for performance fees may differ based on the state of registration.  For example, here are how four different states deal with performance fee issue:

Texas – Like most states, Texas allows state-registered investment advisers to charge performance fees only to those investors in a fund which are “qualified clients” as defined in Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act. This means that a hedge fund manager can only charge performance fees to investors in the fund which have a $1.5 million net worth or who have $750,000 of AUM with the manager (can be in the fund and through other accounts).  See generally  116.13(b) of the Texas Administrative Code reprinted below.

New Jersey – Many states adopted laws and regulations based on the 1956 version of the Uniform Securities Act and have yet to make the most recent update to their laws and regulations (generally those found in the 2002 version of the Uniform Securities Act).  Under the New Jersey laws a manager can charge performance fees to those clients with a $1 million net worth.

Indiana – similar to New Jersey, Indiana has laws which allow a manager to charge performance fees to those investors with a $1 million  net worth.  Additionally, Indiana allows a manager to charge performance fees or to those investors who have $500,000 of AUM with the manager (can be in the hedge fund and through other separately managed accounts).  Indiana also has an interesting provision which specifies the manner in which the performance fee may be calculated – it requires that the fee be charged on a period of no less than one year.  This rule is based on an earlier version of SEC Rule 205-3.  What this means, essentially, is that managers who are registered in Indiana cannot charge quarterly performance fees, but must charge their performance fees only on an annual basis (or longer).

Michigan – Unlike any other state, Michigan actually forbids all performance fees for Michigan-registered investment advisors.  The present statute is probably an unintended consequence of some sloppy drafting.  Nonetheless, it is a regulation on the books.  Hedge Fund Managers registered with Michigan, however, should see the bright spot – Michigan is in the process of updating its securities laws and regulations.  This means that sometime in late 2009 or early 2010 it should be legal for investment advisors in Michigan to charge their clients a performance fee under certain circumstances (likely to mirror the SEC rules).

New York – Sometimes, states will have some wacky rules.  In the case of New York, there are no rules regarding performance fees.

Other Issues

With regard to performance fees, the other issue which should be discussed with your hedge fund lawyer is whether or not the state “looks through” to the underlying investor to determine “qualified client” status.  Generally most states will follow the SEC rule on this issue and look through the fund to the underlying investors to make this determination.

While these cases are just a couple of examples of the disparate treatment of similarly situated managers, they serve as a reminder that investment advisor (and securities) laws may differ wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Managers should be aware of the possibility of completely different laws and should be ready to discuss the issue with legal counsel.

The various rules discussed above have been reprinted below.

****

Texas Rule

The full text of the Texas IA fee rules can be found here and are copied below.

§116.13.Advisory Fee Requirements.

(a) Any registered investment adviser who wishes to charge 3.0% or greater of the assets under management must disclose that such fee is in excess of the industry norm and that similar advisory services can be obtained for less.

(b) Any registered investment adviser who wishes to charge a fee based on a share of the capital gains or the capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of a client must comply with SEC Rule 205-3 (17 Code of Federal Regulations §275.205-3), which prohibits the use of such fee unless the client is a “qualified client.” In general, a qualified client may include:

(1) a natural person or company who at the time of entering into such agreement has at least $750,000 under the management of the investment adviser;

(2) a natural person or company who the adviser reasonably believes at the time of entering into the contract:  (A) has a net worth of jointly with his or her spouse of more than $1,500,000; or (B) is a qualified purchaser as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, §2(a)(51)(A) (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(51)(A)); or

(3) a natural person who at the time of entering into the contract is: (A) An executive officer, director, trustee, general partner, or person serving in similar capacity of the investment adviser; or (B) An employee of the investment adviser (other than an employee performing solely clerical, secretarial, or administrative functions with regard to the investment adviser), who, in connection with his or her regular functions or duties, participates in the investment activities of such investment adviser, provided that such employee has been performing such functions and duties for or on behalf of the investment adviser, or substantially similar function or duties for or on behalf of another company for at least 12 months.

CO Rule

The full text of the Colorado laws and regulations can be found here.  The fee discussion is reprinted below.

51-4.8(IA) Dishonest and Unethical Conduct

Introduction

A person who is an investment adviser or an investment adviser representative is a fiduciary and has a duty to act primarily for the benefit of its clients. While the extent and nature of this duty varies according to the nature of the relationship between an investment adviser and its clients and the circumstances of each case, an investment adviser or investment adviser representative shall not engage in dishonest or unethical conduct including the following:

J. Charging a client an advisory fee that is unreasonable in light of the type of services to be provided, the experience of the adviser, the sophistication and bargaining power of the client, and whether the adviser has disclosed that lower fees for comparable services may be available from other sources.

New Jersey

The full text of the New Jersey performance fee rules can be found here and are copied below.

13:47A-2.10 Performance fee compensation

…

(b) The client entering into the contract subject to this regulation must be a natural person or a company as defined in Rule 205-3, who the registered investment advisor (and any person acting on the investment advisor’s behalf) entering into the contract reasonably believes, immediately prior to entering into the contract, is a natural person or a company as defined in Rule 205-3, whose net worth at the time the contract is entered into exceeds $1,000,000. The net worth of a natural person shall be as defined by Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/bos/bosregs.htm

Indiana

The Indiana rule can be found here and is reprinted below.

(f) The client entering into the contract must be either of the following:

(1) A natural person or a company who immediately after entering into the contract has at least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) under the management of the investment adviser.

(2) A person who the investment adviser and its investment adviser representatives reasonably believe, immediately before entering into the contract, is a natural person or a company whose net worth, at the time the contract is entered into, exceeds one million dollars ($1,000,000). The net worth of a natural person may include assets held jointly with that person’s spouse.

Michigan

The current law (until October 1, 2009) can be found here and is copied below.

451.502 Investment adviser; unlawful practices.

(b) It is unlawful for any investment adviser to enter into, extend, or renew any investment advisory contract unless it provides in writing all of the following:

(1) That the investment adviser shall not be compensated on the basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client.

New York

No laws regarding performance fees for state registered 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. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, 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.

Series 79 Exam Available November 2, 2009

2 Replies

FINRA Announces Date of First Series 79 Exam

The new investment banking exam, the Series 79, will be available for those first new test takers on November 2, 2009 at any of the FINRA testing centers (Pearson and Prometric).  In addition to the test date announcement, FINRA also published a Series 79 Content Outline which seems to be very comprehensive.  We have provided an overview of the exam below and will continue to bring you updated information on this exam.

Also, please note that right now we do not know of any groups who have completed a Series 79 exam study guide, but we have had informal conversations with representatives from both STC and Kaplan – these representatives have stated that they are currently working on developing such a study guide which should be available soon.  We will let you know when these study materials become available.

Series 79 Overview

According to FINRA, the following are the key stats for the Series 79 exam:

  • Questions:  175 multiple choice questions (plus 10 pre-test, non-graded questions)
  • Time:  5 hours testing time
  • Eligibility:  FINRA member firm must sponsor the candidate
  • Application:   Submission of Form U-4 through Web CRD
  • Purpose:  This examination qualifies an individual to advise on or facilitate debt or equity offerings through a private placement or public offering or to advise or facilitate mergers or acquisitions, tender offers, financial restructurings, asset sales, divestitures or other corporate reorganizations or business combination transactions.

FINRA’s Stated Exam Purpose

The Series 79 Examination is designed to assess the competency of entry-level investment bankers. As a qualification examination, it is intended to safeguard the investing public by seeking to measure the degree to which each candidate possesses the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform the major functions of an entry-level investment banker. Candidates should note that the duties and functions of the investment banker must be performed in accordance with just and equitable principles of trade, federal and state laws, and industry regulations. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the candidate to be aware of changes in current legislation, regulation and policy. A registrant who violates industry regulations is subject to disciplinary action, including censures, fines, suspension, and permanent loss of registration.

****

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.