Category Archives: Uncategorized

California Finance Lenders License

California Requirements for Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds Engaged in Lending Businesses

Investment advisers, private equity managers, private fund managers, and other businesses that are engaged in making loans should be aware of whether their activities fall under the purview of the lending laws of any state such that they would be required to obtain a license and comply with certain ongoing regulatory requirements.

Under California law, finance lenders (defined as “any persons who are engaged in the business of making consumer loans or making commercial loans”) and finance brokers (defined as “any persons engaged in the business of negotiating or performing any act as brokers in connection with loans made by a finance lender”) are required to obtain a California Finance Lenders License. Private investment funds, such as hedge funds and private equity funds, that engage in such activities are no exception.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the California Finance Lenders Law (“CFLL”) exempts certain transactions from its licensing requirements. Lenders relying on these exemptions will be able to avoid a lengthy application process with the California Department of Business Oversight and its associated requirements and costs.

New and Existing Exemptions under the California Finance Lenders Law

Effective January 1, 2014, section 22050(e) of the California Financial Code was amended to exempt persons who make five or fewer commercial loans in a 12-month period, provided that the loans are incidental to the business of the person relying upon the exemption. This amendment expanded the previous de minimis exemption for any person making just one commercial loan in a 12-month period. As such, investment advisers, private fund managers, and other members of the investment management industry that occasionally provide commercial loans may take advantage of this expanded safe harbor as long as such loans are incidental to their primary business.

A full list of exemptions is set forth under Sections 22050 – 22065 of the California Financial Code, providing relief from CFLL regulation for other types of transactions and specific entities licensed by other regulatory agencies. Among those exempt are the following:

• Banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations, insurance premium finance agencies, credit unions, small business investment companies, community advantage lenders, California business and industrial development corporations, or licensed pawnbrokers;

• Loans made or arranged by persons licensed as a real estate broker by the state and secured by a lien on real property, or to any licensed real estate broker when making such loan;

• Commercial bridge loans made by a venture capital company to an operating company, subject to certain requirements.

If you are engaged in lending transactions, we encourage you to contact your legal counsel to determine if you are eligible for one of the exemptions under the CFLL.

Licensing and Regulation under the California Finance Lenders Law

Finance lenders unable to avail themselves of an exemption from CFLL regulation will need to submit an application to the California Department of Business Oversight. Currently, the application must include the following attached items:

• Balance sheet

• Surety bond in the amount of $25,000

• Proof of Legal Presence (for sole proprietor applicants)

• California Customer Authorization for Disclosure of Financial Records Form

• Fictitious Business Name Statement (if applicable)

• Certificate of Status or Good Standing in the applicant’s state of formation and in CA

• Partnership Agreement (for general partnership applicants)

• Federal Taxpayer Identification Number or Social Security Number (for sole proprietors)

• Organization Chart for the Applicant

In addition, each individual responsible for the applicant’s lending activities must complete a “Statement of Identity and Questionnaire” and provide fingerprints. The application fee is currently $200 (nonrefundable), plus an investigation fee of $100 and fingerprint processing fees ($20 per California resident; $80 per non-California resident).

It should be noted that the licensing process for residential mortgage providers (mortgage lenders and brokers) is a separate application, filed through the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System.

Once approved, licensees are subject to periodic regulatory examinations for which they must pay; pay an annual assessment each year; file an Annual Report by March 15 of each year; are subject to statutory books and record requirements; and must maintain a $25,000 surety bond at all times.

If you are subject to licensing would like our assistance with obtaining a California Finance Lenders License, please contact us.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP provides legal services to hedge fund and private equity funds.  Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP End of Year Checklist 2013

Below is our end of the year update and checklist.  Please contact us directly if you would like to be added to the distribution list.

****

www.colefrieman.com

December 4, 2013

Clients, Friends, Associates:

December is the busiest month of the year for most private fund managers. In addition to end of year administrative upkeep, the regulatory landscape has shifted dramatically over the past twelve months. As a result, year-end processes and 2014 planning are particularly important, especially for General Counsels, CCOs and key operations personnel. As we head into 2014, we have put together this checklist to help managers stay on top of the business and regulatory landscape for the coming year.

This overview includes the following:

* Regulatory & Other Changes in 2013
* Adviser Registration & Compliance
* CFTC Regulation
* Annual Compliance & Other Items
* Annual Fund Matters
* Annual Management Company Matters
* Compliance Calendar

****

Regulatory & Other Changes in 2013:

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”). FATCA will require certain financial institutions to identify and disclose direct and indirect U.S. investors and withhold U.S. income tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, or be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax on payments they receive from U.S. sources (the “FATCA Tax”). FATCA’s implementation deadline was delayed by six months, such that foreign financial institutions (including offshore funds), now have until April 25, 2014 to complete certain steps in order to avoid being subject to the FATCA Tax. Offshore fund managers should contact their tax advisers and compliance counsel to prepare for FATCA compliance and, if required, to register with the IRS before April 25, 2014. In addition, domestic fund managers should work with their tax advisers, administrators and legal counsel to properly address the new account onboarding and due diligence procedures required under FATCA, including updating their offering documents and subscription materials.

General Solicitation Ban Lifted. Earlier this year, the SEC issued long-awaited implementing regulations and other proposed rules relating to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”), including most famously (and potentially least well understood), the New Rule 506(c) under Regulation D. New Rule 506(c) became effective on September 23, 2013, and it permits private investment funds to engage in general solicitation and advertising to the public, provided that the funds take “reasonable steps” to verify that all investors are “accredited investors.” Mere reliance on investors’ representations in a questionnaire or subscription agreement (the most common means of establishing accredited status among private investment funds that do not generally solicit) is insufficient. In addition, to rely on the New Rule 506(c), funds must amend their current Form Ds filed with the SEC to indicate that going forward they will rely on Rule 506(c).

Additional Proposed Rules. Beyond the accredited investor verification requirements noted above, the SEC has proposed several additional new rules in connection with Rule 506(c) offerings, including (i) requiring an “advance” Form D filing at least 15 days before generally soliciting; (ii) requiring a “closing amendment” to Form D at the conclusion of the offering; (iii) temporarily requiring funds to submit all general solicitation materials to the SEC in advance of their use; (iv) mandating that certain legends be included on all general solicitation materials; (v) automatically disqualifying an issuer from using Regulation D for one year if it fails to file a Form D; and (vi) increasing the information disclosed on Form D.

CFTC Issues. While the SEC’s New Rule 506(c) permits general solicitation under the conditions set forth above, the CFTC has yet to revise its rules to reflect this change. As such, managers that rely on the CFTC’s Rule 4.13(a)(3) exemption from registration as a CPO, and managers that are registered CPOs operating under the CFTC Rule 4.7 exemption, remain prohibited from marketing to the public in the United States.

Identity Theft “Red Flag” Rules. This year the SEC and CFTC jointly issued final rules (the “Rules”) that went into effect on November 20, 2013 requiring certain investment advisers and other regulated entities to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs. The Rules stipulate that such programs should seek to detect, prevent and mitigate potential identity theft associated with accounts the advisers manage.

Application to Investment Advisers. The Rules are detailed and nuanced in nature, but they should generally only apply to investment advisers to the extent the advisers, pursuant to powers of attorney or other arrangements, are authorized by individual clients to direct payment of such clients’ redemption monies to third parties. For this reason, certain investment advisers are revising their offering documents to narrow the scope of the powers of attorney granted thereunder.

What is Included in a Program? To be compliant with the Rules, any program developed and implemented thereunder must include reasonable policies and procedures to identify relevant “red flags” (any activity indicating the possible existence of identity theft), and detect and respond appropriately to any red flags to prevent and mitigate identity theft. Further, the entity must train its staff to properly implement the program, and oversee service providers’ compliance therewith (by, for example, obtaining certifications from their administrators that the administrator understands, and is complying with, the program).

European Union’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”). The AIFMD went into effect in July of this year, and generally subjects managers marketing alternative investment funds in the EU to heightened reporting and disclosure obligations. These obligations consist of providing pre-investment and ongoing disclosures to investors, complying with requirements affecting manager remuneration, and preparing annual and regular reports to an EU national regulator. In addition, managers may need to comply with the domestic implementing legislation of the jurisdiction where specifically targeted investors are located.

Certain countries, including the UK, Sweden and Germany (for existing funds as of July 22, 2013), are allowing a one-year transitional period delaying the application of the AIMFD to non-EU managers. Other jurisdictions have adopted much more stringent requirements to restrict marketing efforts by non-EU managers. If you are marketing to EU investors, you should carefully review the directive’s provisions as well as applicable national laws to make sure you comply with all requirements.

Dodd-Frank Protocols. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association’s Dodd-Frank Documentation Initiative aims to facilitate compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act. The Documentation Initiative minimizes the need for bilateral negotiations and reduces disruptions to trading by providing a standard set of amendments, referred to as protocols, to update existing swap documentation. 2013 brought compliance deadlines for two such protocols: the ISDA August 2012 Dodd-Frank Protocol (the “Protocol 1.0”), which had an effective compliance date of May 1, 2013, and the ISDA March 2013 Dodd-Frank Protocol (the “Protocol 2.0”) which had an effective compliance date of July 1, 2013. To indicate participation in Protocol 1.0 and Protocol 2.0, market participants must respond to each Protocol’s questionnaire, submit an adherence letter and pay an adherence fee of $500.00 per Protocol through the online ISDA Amend system. Detailed instructions for (i) Protocol 1.0 can be found here, and (ii) Protocol 2.0 can be found here.

Medicare Tax. As of the beginning of 2013, individuals, estates and trusts are subject to a Medicare tax of 3.8% on “net investment income” (or undistributed “net investment income”, in the case of estates and trusts) for each taxable year. For individuals, the 3.8% tax applies to the lesser of such “net investment income” or the excess of such person’s adjusted gross income (with certain adjustments) over a specified threshold amount. For estates and trusts, the 3.8% tax applies if such entities have undistributed “net investment income” above a certain threshold. Net income and gain attributable to an investment in private investment funds will likely be included in investors’ “net investment income” subject to this Medicare tax. Fund managers should contact their tax advisers and legal counsel to assess whether their corporate structure is ideally configured to reduce the impact of this 3.8% tax.

Adviser Registration & Compliance:

Form ADV Annual Amendment. Registered investment advisers (“RIAs”), or managers filing as exempt reporting advisers (“ERAs”), with the SEC or a state securities authority must file an annual amendment to Form ADV within 90 days of the end of their fiscal year. RIAs must provide a copy of the updated Form ADV Part 2A brochure and Part 2B brochure supplement (or a summary of changes with an offer to provide the complete brochure) to each “client”. Note that for SEC-registered advisers to private investment vehicles, a “client” for purposes of this rule is the vehicle(s) managed by the adviser. State-registered advisers need to examine their state’s rules to determine who constitutes the “client.

Switching to/from SEC Regulation.

SEC Registration. Managers who no longer qualify for SEC registration as of the time of filing the annual amendment must withdraw from SEC registration within 180 days after the end of their fiscal year by filing Form ADV-W. Managers should consult their state securities authorities to determine whether they are required to register in their home states. Managers who are required to register with the SEC as of the date of their annual amendment must register with the SEC within 90 days of filing the annual amendment.

Exempt Reporting Advisers. Managers who no longer meet the definition of an ERA will need to submit a final report as an ERA and apply for registration with the SEC or the relevant state securities authority, if necessary, generally within 90 days after the filing of the annual amendment.

CFTC Regulation: 

Annual Re-Certification of CFTC Exemptions. CPOs and CTAs currently relying on certain exemptions from registration with the CFTC will be required to re-certify their eligibility within 60 days of the calendar year end. CPOs currently relying on CFTC Regulation 4.13(a)(3) will need to evaluate whether the commodity pool is still eligible for the exemption when taking into account the new CFTC regulated products.

CPO and CTA Annual Updates. Registered CPOs and CTAs must prepare and file Annual Questionnaires and Annual Registration Updates with the NFA, as well as submit payment for annual maintenance fees and NFA membership dues. Registered CPOs must also prepare and file their fourth quarter report for each commodity pool (Form CPO-PQR). Further, 2013 saw certain changes in CTA reporting, as the NFA now requires CTAs to file a quarterly Form CTA-PR within 45 days of the end of the quarter (the fourth quarter CTA-PR will be due on February 14, 2014). Unless eligible to claim relief under Regulation 4.7, registered CPOs and CTAs must update their disclosure documents periodically, as they may not use any document dated more than 12 months prior to the date of its intended use. Disclosure documents that are materially inaccurate or incomplete must be promptly corrected and the corrected version must be promptly distributed to pool participants.

Annual Compliance & Other Items:

New Issue Status. On an annual basis, managers need to confirm or reconfirm the eligibility of investors that participate in initial public offerings or new issues, pursuant to both FINRA Rules 5130 and 5131. Most managers reconfirm investors’ eligibility via negative consent, i.e., investors are informed of their status as on file with the manager and are asked to inform the manager of any changes. No response operates as consent to the current status.

ERISA Status. Given the significant problems that can occur from not properly tracking ERISA investors, we recommend that managers also confirm or reconfirm on an annual basis the ERISA status of their investors. This is particularly important for managers that track the underlying percentage of ERISA funds for each investor. This reconfirmation can also be obtained through a negative consent.

Annual Privacy Policy Notice. On an annual basis, a registered investment adviser must also provide its investors with a copy of its privacy policy, even if there are no changes to the policy.

Annual Compliance Review. On an annual basis, the CCO of a registered investment adviser must conduct a review of the adviser’s compliance policies and procedures. This annual compliance review should be in writing and presented to senior management. We recommend that you discuss the annual review with your outside counsel or compliance firm, who can provide guidance about the review process as well as a template for the assessment and documentation. Advisers should be careful that sensitive conversations regarding the annual review are protected by attorney-client privilege. CCOs may also want to consider additions to the compliance program. Advisers that are not registered may still wish to review their procedures and/or implement a compliance program as a best practice.

Trade Errors. Managers should make sure that all trade errors are properly addressed pursuant to the manager’s trade errors polices by the end of the year. Documentation of trade errors should be finalized, and if the manager is required to reimburse any of its funds, it should do so by year-end.

Soft Dollars. Managers that participate in soft dollar programs should make sure that they have addressed any commission balances from the previous year.

Custody Rule Annual Audit. SEC registered advisers must comply with certain custody procedures, including (i) maintaining client funds and securities with a qualified custodian; (ii) having a reasonable basis to believe that the qualified custodian sends an account statement to each advisory client at least quarterly; and (iii) undergoing an annual surprise examination conducted by an independent public accountant.

Advisers to pooled investment vehicles may avoid both the quarterly statements and surprise examination requirements by having audited financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP by an independent public accountant registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Statements must be sent to the fund or, in certain cases, investors in the fund, within 120 days after the fund’s fiscal year end. Managers should review their custody procedures to ensure compliance with the rules. Requirements for state-registrants may differ, and we encourage you to contact us if you have any questions or concerns about your custody arrangements.

Schedule 13G/D and Section 16 Filings. Managers who exercise investment discretion over accounts (including funds and separately managed accounts) that are beneficial owners of 5% or more of a registered voting equity security must report these positions on Schedule 13G. Schedule 13G filings are updated annually within 45 days of the end of the year. For managers who are also filing Schedule 13D and/or Section 16 filings, this is an opportune time to review your filings to confirm compliance and anticipate needs for Q1.

Form 13F. A manager must also file a Form 13F if it exercises investment discretion with respect to $100 million or more in certain securities within 45 days after the end of the year in which the manager reaches the $100 million filing threshold. The SEC lists the securities subject to 13F reporting on its website.

Form 13H. Managers who meet the SEC’s large trader thresholds (in general, managers whose transactions in exchange-listed securities equal or exceed two million shares or $20 million during any calendar day, or 20 million shares or $200 million during any calendar month) are required to file an initial Form 13H with the SEC within 10 days of crossing the threshold. Large traders also need to amend Form 13H annually within 45 days of the end of the year. In addition, changes to the information on Form 13H will require interim amendments following the calendar quarter in which the change occurred.

SEC Form D. Form D filings for most funds need to be amended on an annual basis, on or before the anniversary of the initial SEC Form D filing. Form D has changed slightly this year in connection with the lifted ban on general solicitation discussed above. Instead of checking a box to indicate reliance on “Rule 506” there are now separate boxes to indicate reliance on either Rule 506(b) or Rule 506(c). Funds that previously selected “Rule 506” and do not wish to generally solicit will now check the “Rule 506(b)” box. Funds wishing to take advantage of the relaxed rules surrounding general solicitation will check the Rule 506(c) box. Importantly, the SEC has indicated that one offering cannot simultaneously rely on both Rule 506(b) and 506(c), and that once a general solicitation is made, issuers may no longer rely on Rule 506(b). Copies of Form D can be obtained by potential investors via the SEC’s website.

Blue Sky Filings. On an annual basis, a manager should review its blue sky filings for each state to make sure it has met any renewal requirements. States are increasingly imposing late fees or rejecting late filings altogether. Accordingly, it is critical to stay on top of filing deadlines for both new investors and renewals.

IARD Annual Fees. Preliminary annual renewal fees for state registered and SEC registered investment advisers are due by December 13, 2013 (submit payment by December 10 in order for payment to post prior to the deadline).

Pay-to-Play and Lobbyist Rules. SEC rules disqualify investment advisers, their key personnel and placement agents acting on their behalf, from seeking to be engaged by a governmental client if they have made political contributions. State and local governments are following suit, including California, which requires internal sales professionals who meet the definition of “placement agents” (people who act for compensation as finders, solicitors, marketers, consultants, brokers, or other intermediaries in connection with offering or selling investment advisory services to a state public retirement system in California) to register with the state as lobbyists, and comply with California lobbyist reporting and regulatory requirements. Investment professionals (employees who spend at least one-third of their time managing the assets or securities of the manager) are statutorily excluded from California’s “placement agent” definition, and thus do not have to register as lobbyists. Note that managers offering or selling investment advisory services to local government entities have to register as lobbyists in the applicable cities and counties.

State laws on lobbyist registration differ widely, so we recommend reviewing your reporting requirements in the states in which you operate to make sure you are in compliance with the rules.

Form PF. Managers to private funds that are either registered with the SEC or required to be registered with the SEC and have at least $150 million in regulatory AUM began filing Form PF in 2012. Smaller private advisers (fund managers with fewer than $1.5 billion in regulatory AUM) must file Form PF annually within 120 days of their fiscal year end. Larger private advisers (fund managers with $1.5 billion or more in regulatory AUM) must file Form PF within 60 days of the end of each fiscal quarter.

Electronic Schedule K-1s. This year, the IRS authorized partnerships and limited liability companies taxed as partnerships to issue Schedule K-1s to investors solely by electronic means, provided the partnership has received the investor’s affirmative consent. States may have different rules regarding electronic K-1s and partnerships should check with their counsel whether they may still be required to send state K-1s on paper. Partnerships must also provide each investor with specific disclosures that include a description of the hardware and software necessary to access the electronic K-1s, how long the consent is effective and the procedures for withdrawing the consent. If you would like to send K-1s your investors electronically you should discuss your options with your service providers.

Other Fund Matters:

Wash Sales. Managers should carefully manage wash sales for year end. Failure to do so could result in embarrassing book/tax differences for investors. Certain dealers can provide managers with swap strategies to manage wash sales, including Basket Total Return Swaps and Split Strike Forward Conversion. These strategies should be considered carefully to make sure they are consistent with the investment objectives of the fund.

Redemption Management. Managers with significant redemptions at the end of the year should carefully manage the unwinding positions so as to minimize transaction costs in the current year (that could impact performance), and prevent transaction costs from impacting remaining investors in the next year. When closing funds or managed accounts, managers should pay careful attention to the liquidation procedures in the managed account agreement and the fund constituent documents.

NAV Triggers and Waivers. Managers should promptly seek waivers of any applicable termination events set forth in a fund’s ISDA or other counterparty agreement that may be triggered by redemptions, performance or a combination of both at the end of the year (NAV declines are common counterparty agreement termination events).

Fund Expenses. Managers should wrap up all fund expenses for 2013 if they have not already done so. In particular, managers should contact their outside legal counsel to obtain accurate and up to date information about legal expenses for inclusion in the NAV for year-end performance.

Management Company Issues:

Management Company Expenses. Managers who distribute profits on an annual basis should attempt to address management company expenses in the year they are incurred. If ownership or profit percentages are adjusted at the end of the year, a failure to manage expenses could significantly impact the economics of the partnership or the management company.

Employee Reviews. An effective annual review process is important to reduce employment-related litigation and protect the management company in the event of such litigation. Moreover, it is an opportunity to provide context for bonuses, compensation adjustments, employee goals and other employee-facing matters at the firm. It is not too late to put an annual review process in place.

Compensation Planning. In the fund industry, and the financial services industry in general, the end of the year is the appropriate time to make adjustments to compensation programs. Since much of a manager’s revenue is tied to annual income from incentive fees, any changes to the management company structure, affiliated partnerships, or any shadow equity programs should be effective on the first of the year. Make sure that partnership agreements and operating agreements are appropriately updated to reflect such changes.

Insurance. If a manager carries D&O Insurance or other liability insurance, the policy should be reviewed on an annual basis to make sure that the manager has provided notice to the carrier of all claims and all potential claims. Also, newly launched funds should be added to the policy as appropriate.

Compliance Calendar

As you plan your regulatory compliance timeline for the coming months, please keep the following dates in mind:

Deadline                          Filing

November 20, 2013     “Red Flag” Rules effective

December 13, 2013     IARD Preliminary Renewal Statement Due (submit payment by Dec. 10 in order for payment to post by deadline)

February 14, 2014     Fourth Quarter CTA-PR Due

February 14, 2014     Schedule 13G Update Due; Form 13F Due (if applicable); Form 13H Amendment Due

March 1, 2014     Deadline for Re-Certification of CFTC Exemptions

March 3, 2014     Quarterly Form PF Due for Larger Private Advisers (if applicable)

March 31, 2014     Annual ADV Amendments Due

Periodic Filings     Form D and Blue Sky filings should be current

Please feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions regarding your end-of-the-year compliance. We wish you all the best as 2013 comes to a close.

Sincerely,

Karl Cole-Frieman & Bart Mallon

***

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a premier boutique investment management law firm, providing top-tier, responsive and cost-effective legal solutions for financial services matters. Headquartered in San Francisco, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has an international practice that services both start-up investment managers as well as multi-billion dollar firms. The firm provides a full suite of legal services to the investment management community, including: hedge fund, private equity fund, and venture capital fund formation, adviser registration, counterparty documentation, SEC, CFTC, NFA and FINRA matters, seed deals, hedge fund due diligence, employment and compensation matters, and routine business matters. The firm also publishes the prominent Hedge Fund Law Blog which focuses on legal issues that impact the hedge fund community. For more information please visit us at: www.colefrieman.com.

This newsletter is published as a source of information only for clients and friends of the firm and should not be construed as legal advice or opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to regulations governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a California limited liability partnership and this publication may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.

Hedge Fund Events December 2013

The following are various hedge fund events happening this month. Please contact us if you would like to add your event to this list.

****

December 2

December 3

December 3

December 3

December 3-4

December 4

December 5

December 5

December 5

December 5

  • Sponsor: N.Y. HF Roundtable
  • Event: Effects of QE
  • Location: New York, NY

December 6

December 8-10

December 8-10

December 8-10

  • Sponsor: Opal
  • Event: CLO Summit
  • Location: Dana Point, CA

December 8-10

December 9

  • Sponsor: Incisive Media
  • Event: Waters USA
  • Location: New York, NY

December 9

December 9

December 9

December 10

December 10

December 10

December 11

December 13

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP provides legal services for hedge fund managers and other groups within the investment management industry. Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Investment Management Law Weekly Overview – Week Ending November 15

Please see below our notes on the past week.  If you have questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact us.

****

Pay to Play Fee Prohibition Relief Granted

Pursuant to Pay to Play Regulations (Rule 206 (4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act) a fund manager is prohibited from making political contributions in certain situations. If a fund manager (or employee of the fund manager) makes political contributions to an elected official who could influence the allocation of assets to the adviser, the manager is prohibition from receiving fees on those assets for two years from the date of the political contribution. Managers can, however, ask for relief in certain situations from the prohibition on collecting fees. In this order (summary below), the SEC permits the manager to receive fees based on the facts of situation:

An order has been issued on an application filed by Davidson Kempner Capital Management LLC (“DKCM”) under Section 206A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-5(e) thereunder. The order permits DKCM to receive compensation from three government entities for investment advisory services provided to the government entities within the two-year period following a contribution by a covered associate of DKCM to an official of the government entities.

Insider Trading – Hedge Fund Manager

In a press release, the SEC announced insider trading charges against a hedge fund trader. The trader had a consulting agreement with a former high-level employee of a public company. The former high-level employee maintained connections at the public company and passed along inside information which he received from friends within the public company. According to the release, the trader was able to avoid approximately $2.4 million in losses and make $853,655 in illicit profits by trading shares ahead of positive or negative news. The SEC’s complaint charges Megalli with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.  For more information, please see the SEC press release.

CFTC Approves Two Position-Limits Proposals

With a 3-1 vote, CFTC Commissioners approved Proposed Regulation on Position Limits for Derivatives. The proposed rulemaking would establish limits on speculative positions in 28 physical commodity futures contracts traded pursuant to the rules of a designated contract market (“DCM”) as well as swaps that are economically equivalent to those contracts, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Additionally, CFTC Commissioners unanimously approved the Proposed Regulations for Aggregation of Accounts Under Part 150, Position Limits. The comment period for these proposals is now open.  More information (including an overview and a Q&A sheet) can be found here.  

Futures Industry Releases Study on Insurance for Customer Accounts

After the MF Global and PFG implosions, we have become acutely aware that the SIPC does not insure customer accounts with respect to futures positions. No one does. So members of the futures industry commissioned a study on the viability of insurance for futures positions.  The main author of the study stated:

The objective of the study was to analyze and quantify the potential costs of various scenarios, including a government-mandated solution similar to what exists today in the securities industry as well as voluntary market-based solutions provided by private insurance companies. The study does not provide any policy recommendations, but the hope is that it will assist policy makers by clarifying the amount of insurance coverage that could be obtained through these solutions and the potential costs for each.

It is likely this is the first step towards some sort of insurance and protection mechanism for futures customers.  More information on the study can be found here.  Full text of the study can be found here.

FINRA Makes Broker Check Easier to Use

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it has released an enhanced version of BrokerCheck that allows investors to more quickly access and more intuitively understand the professional background of investment professionals.  For more information, please see the FINRA release.

Next Week Items

Regulation S-ID Becomes Effective November 20, 2013 – for more information on the new red flag rules for certain SEC and CFTC registrants, please see this article from the ComplianceFocus blog.

SEC Announces Panelists for Small Business Forum – on Thursday, November 21, the SEC will again have an annual forum that focuses on the capital formation concerns of small business. A major purpose of the Forum is to provide a platform to highlight perceived unnecessary impediments to small business capital formation and address whether they can be eliminated or reduced.  There will be two panels throughout the day.  The first panel will focus on evolving practices in the new world of Regulation D exempt offerings. The second panel will focus on what might be next for small business and markets once the JOBS Act is fully implemented.  The forum agenda can be found here, and information on the panelists and what they will be discussing (powerpoint presentations) can be found here.

SEC Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee Meeting – On Friday November 22, the SEC will have a meeting where a fiduciary duty standard for broker-dealers will be discussed as well as legislation to fund investment adviser examinations. The meeting will be webcast on the SEC website and more information can be found here.

Enforcement Proceedings

SEC 

BD Rep Barred for Undisclosed Outside Business Activities – November 15, 2013.  A registered representative was effectively barred from the industry for, among other things, conducting an outside business activity without disclosing the activity to the representative’s employer and also for transferring customer assets to the outside business without the receiving the customer’s informed consent. The SEC order can be found here

CFTC

Fraud Charges against Unregistered CPO – November 13, 2013. Among other items the unregistered CPO: (1) falsely claimed to have a successful and experienced trader for the pool, (2) misrepresented the likelihood of profits and the risks associated with trading commodity futures, (3) failed to disclose that they were not properly registered with the CFTC to operate a pool, and (4) failed to disclose their intended uses of pool participant funds. Press release can be found here.

Forex Fraud Charges – November 12, 2013. The forex trader made many misrepresentions with respect to its trading and other aspects of firm operations, including that almost 80 percent of customer funds were never traded or invested in any manner. The forex trader also misappropriated over $3.3 million of customer funds to pay personal and entertainment expenses, including Las Vegas casino expenses, purchase automobiles and clothing, and ATM or cash withdrawals. Press release can be found here.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a premier boutique investment management law firm, providing top-tier, responsive, and cost-effective legal solutions for financial services matters.  Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon Sponsor September SAIA Event

Focus on Japan – September 12, 2013

The Seattle Alternative Investment Association (“SAIA”) is hosting a panel discussion in September on Japan.  Information on the event and speakers is provided below.  We are pleased to be sponsors of this event and, as always, we look forward to connecting with clients and friends while we are in Seattle.

For more information on the event and to see the speaker bios, please visit the SAIA events page

****

Please sign up now to attend SAIA’s next panel discussion, which is scheduled for Thursday, September 12, 2013. This event is called: “The Insider View: Investing in Japan and the Assessment of Abenomics.”

This event is sponsored by Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.

The speakers will be:

Brian Heywood, CEO and Founding Partner of Taiyo Pacific;
Peter Tasker, Founding Partner of Arcus Investment; and
Alex Kinmont, Portfolio Manager at Milestone Asset Management.

The moderator of this panel will be Edward Rogers, CEO and CIO at Rogers Investment Advisors. Attached is an invitation with speaker bios.

The panelists will focus on the recent economic and political changes in Japan created by Abenomics. They will offer their opinions on whether Abenomics has succeeded or failed thus far, and provide forecasts for the future. The panel will also discuss the current investment environment in Japan including current market valuations and prospective return environment; the effectiveness of activism and potential to unlock value; the risks involved given Japan’s extremely high levels of debt and declining population; and the current investment environment in Japan and who is investing.

It will be held in the Puget Sound Conference Room at 1918 8th Avenue in downtown Seattle (at the corner of 8th and Virginia). Registration begins at 5:30 and the event begins at 6:15 PM and will run until 7:30-7:45 PM.

Seating is limited, so please register to confirm your attendance. To register, go to www.nwhfs.com and click on “News and Events.” At the Events page, click on “register for this event.” This event is free for SAIA members. Otherwise the single event fee is $75 (paid via PayPal, or collected at the door).

If you have any problems with registration or questions, please call Chris Brown at (206) 676-7090 or email ([email protected]). Thank you for your time and interest in SAIA and we look forward to seeing you on Thursday, Sept. 12th.

Sincerely,

The Seattle Alternative Investment Association Board
www.nwhfs.com | [email protected]
315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000
Seattle, Washington 98104-2682

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a premier boutique investment management law firm.  Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Outsourced Compliance Company – Sansome Strategies LLC

Clients, Friends and Readers:

We are pleased to announce the launch of Sansome Strategies LLC, a high-touch outsourced compliance company.  Sansome Strategies will focus on RIAs and hedge fund managers as well as those firms operating in the commodities/futures and derivatives spaces.

As we all know, increased regulatory oversight, through both the passage of laws and the promulgation of new regulations, have changed (and will continue to change) the operating landscape for investment managers.  This is no more true than in the derivatives space where managers have now found themselves subject to CFTC oversight.  Combined with the Dodd-Frank mandate requiring hedge fund and private equity fund managers to register as investment advisers, the demand for outsourced compliance consulting services has dramatically increased.

Sansome Strategies enters the consulting space at this important time and aims to provide both large and small managers with competent and practical consulting advice.

The press release announcing the launch is found below.  For more information, please see the Sansome Strategies website.

Please also visit the Sansome Strategies blog, ComplianceFocus.

****

Sansome Strategies LLC Introduced as New Compliance Consulting Firm with Commodities Focus

San Francisco-Based Firm Specializes in Outsourced CCO Services

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – May 2, 2013 – Announced today is the launch of Sansome Strategies LLC, a compliance consulting firm specializing in high-touch, outsourced compliance services for firms in the investment management industry. Aiding hedge fund managers, commodity pool operators and CTAs, private equity firms, futures managers, and other investment managers, Sansome Strategies offers expertise in streamlining regulatory processes and tailoring compliance outsourcing arrangements to a business’ specific needs.

Sansome Strategies’ head of compliance operations is Jennifer Dickinson, who has extensive experience with private fund compliance, both with respect to investment adviser and futures regulation. Prior to joining Sansome Strategies, Dickinson was a Senior Compliance Consultant at Gordian Compliance Solutions, LLC. Dickinson has been a Chief Compliance Officer at several large investment managers, and worked at the law firms of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. “Sansome Strategies will be a perfect fit for those firms seeking one-off compliance solutions, as well as firms that need an institutional quality compliance consultant,” Dickinson said. Ghufran Rizvi, COO of Standard Pacific Capital, LLC in San Francisco agrees, “I have known Ms. Dickinson for many years. She is a great business partner and Sansome Strategies will be a valuable addition to the compliance consulting space.”

Sansome Strategies’ expertise with futures managers and commodity pool operators differentiates the firm in a crowded field and is unique in the compliance consulting industry. The firm is backed by Karl Cole-Frieman and Bart Mallon, partners and founders of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, which has one of the largest private fund practices in California. “There is significant and increasing demand for a compliance firm that understands both registered investment advisers and CFTC registered firms,” according to Karl Cole-Frieman. “Changes in the CFTC’s registration and exemption requirements have forced more managers into registration,” Bart Mallon notes, “and we have not seen the existing compliance companies prepared to address this demand.”

With Sansome Strategies, clients can pick and choose from an array of options, including a completely or partially outsourced compliance program, or opt for advisory, educational, or training services only. Sansome Strategies collaborates with business management and staff to structure, implement, and maintain their compliance program. Sansome Strategies features a client-centric business model, putting a heavy focus on customized services and collaboration.

####

About Sansome Strategies

Headquartered in San Francisco and with a nation-wide scope of services, Sansome Strategies is a compliance consulting firm specializing in high-touch, outsourced compliance services for businesses in the investment management industry. Serving investment advisers, futures managers, hedge funds, broker-dealers, private equity firms and businesses ranging from entrepreneurial start-ups to multi-billion dollar international institutions, Sansome Strategies prides itself on tailoring compliance management solutions to the unique needs of each client. Comprised of securities industry professionals with years of experience in the financial and regulatory industries, Sansome Strategies’ mission is to simplify the compliance process, minimize risk, and lower costs, with the core goal of helping clients focus on building and enhancing their business. The firm also publishes ComplianceFocus a compliance blog designed to be a practical and accessible resource to the investment management community. For more information please visit Sansome Strategies at: http://sansomestrategies.com.

For more information, please contact:

Jennifer Dickinson
Sansome Strategies LLC
415-762-8753

CFTC Adopts New Segregated Funds Rules Post PFG

In the wake of the failure of MF Global in 2011, regulators and self-regulatory organizations scrambled to assess the damage and to implement regulations to oversee how futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) manage and report segregated funds. Just as some of these rules were being implemented, the Peregrine Financial Group scandal hit, and the renewed calls for reform have likely triggered another wave of regulations.

Recent Activity on Segregated Funds

It has been a busy couple of months for rules affecting segregated funds:

July 9: The NFA brought an emergency action against Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. (“Peregrine Financial”) and Peregrine Asset Management, Inc. for, among other things, failing to demonstrate that they could meet capital and segregated funds requirements. The NFA was Peregrine Financial’s designated self-regulatory organization.

July 10: The NFA notified CPO Members holding assets at Peregrine Financial to notify the NFA of their exposure to Peregrine Financial.

July 13: The CFTC adopted the new segregated funds rules for FCMs proposed by the NFA in late May.

July 16: The NFA, following harsh criticism, announced an external review of its general audit practices and procedures, as well as its execution of those procedures with respect to the NFA’s review of Peregrine Financial’s segregated funds.

Late July: The NFA and other regulatory and self-regulatory organizations publicly discussed proposals for new rules affecting segregated funds.

New Regulations Effective September 1, 2012

The CFTC announced on Friday, July 13 that it had adopted the segregated funds rules proposed by the NFA. These rules will become effective on September 1, 2012. Below is a summary; greater details can be found on the NFA’s website here.

Policies and Procedures. All FCMs must have written policies and procedures regarding the maintenance of the firm’s residual interest in its customer segregated funds. These policies and procedures must target an amount (either by percentage or dollars) that the FCM seeks to maintain as its residual interest in those accounts and ensure that the FCM remains in compliance with the applicable segregation requirements.

Pre-Approval and NFA Notice. No FCM may withdraw, transfer or otherwise disburse funds from any customer segregated funds account exceeding 25% of the FCM’s residual interest in customer segregated funds unless (a) the firm’s CEO, CFO or other defined principal pre-approves the transaction in writing, and (b) a notice is filed immediately with the NFA.

Monthly or Semi-Monthly Reporting. All FCMs must provide NFA with certain financial and operational information on a monthly or semi-monthly basis. NFA will subsequently make some of the information publicly available on its website in the future.

Note: all of these new requirements

also apply to foreign futures and options customer secured amount funds accounts.

Proposed Rules and Procedures

Various regulators and self-regulatory organizations have put forth the following rules and procedures for discussion and possible adoption in the future:

Web-Based Balance Confirmation. A committee of self-regulatory organizations have agreed to put into place a web-based process that FCMs can use to confirm their segregated account balances. [Note: this committee includes the CME Group, NFA, InterContinental Exchange, Kansas City Board of Trade and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.]

Direct e-Monitoring of Accounts. The CFTC, the NFA, and a number of self-regulatory organizations have expressed support for requiring FCMs to provide regulators with direct read-only access to the FCMs’ segregated accounts, to facilitate monitoring of account balances.

Clearinghouses. CME Group expressed potential support for having segregated funds held at clearinghouses or other depositories, with the interest being returned to the FCMs.

Conclusion

FCMs should be aware of the new CFTC rules that will go into effect on September 1, 2012. FCMs should also prepare for the imposition of some or all of the rules proposed by various self-regulatory organizations.

****

Special Reminder: CPOs Must Notify NFA of Exposure to Peregrine Financial

As mentioned above, the NFA is requiring CPO Members that hold assets at Peregrine Financial to report their exposure. Specifically, the NFA requires the following information within 48 hours of receiving the NFA notice:

• The name of each pool account held at Peregrine Financial and its NFA Pool ID number;

• The current dollar amount of pool assets held at Peregrine Financial for each pool account and the corresponding date;

• The most recent net asset value for each pool with funds at Peregrine Financial and the date of the valuation;

• Any withdrawal restrictions that the firm has implemented or plans to implement with respect to each pool.

In addition, please note that following the failure of MF Global, the NFA required CPOs to disclose the extent of their exposure in the CPO’s disclosure documents. The NFA may require a similar disclosure related to Peregrine Financial.

****

Bart Mallon is a partner with Cole-Frieman Mallon & Hunt LLP, an investment management law firm with a focus on managed futures law and regulations which affect CTAs, CPOs, IBs and FCMs. Bart can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

 

More on JOBS Act for Hedge Fund Managers

Below is the transcript of an interview I gave to Markets Reform Wiki. The discussion below is about how the recently enacted JOBS Act will affect the hedge fund industry. There has been an overwhelming amount of attention paid to this bill because it will, in certain ways, fundamentally change the way some managers (especially small and emerging) market their hedge fund going forward. We have also published other pieces about this issue and there will likely be a lot of discussion about hedge fund marketing related to the JOBS Act in the future.

****

Hedge Fund Marketing and the JOBS Act

Five Minutes with Bart Mallon, Cole-Frieman, Mallon & Hunt LLP

On April 5, 2012 President Obama signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”). Inserted into the Act were provisions on hedge fund marketing and accredited investor restrictions. John Lothian News Editor-at-Large Doug Ashburn spoke with Bart Mallon of Cole-Frieman, Mallon & Hunt LLP about the JOBS Act provisions, what they entail and how it will affect the hedge fund community.

Q: On April 5, 2012 President Obama signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”). Inserted into the Act were provisions on hedge fund marketing and accredited investor restrictions. What exactly do the provisions entail?

A: There is not actually any change in marketing provisions per se. What happened is the JOBS Act repealed earlier provisions in the securities laws which did not allow managers to have general solicitations with respect to their offerings. This essentially meant that managers could not solicit by advertising to the public through these private offerings and so managers really had to be careful when trying to grow the assets of their fund. One of the important things to note with respect to the provisions of the JOBS Act is that they can only market more freely if all of the investors of the fund are accredited investors. If they have non-accredited investors coming into the fund, then they cannot use these more liberal advertising means in order to solicit investors.

Q: Does this affect all types of fund structures?

A: For a 3(c)(1) fund structure, the accredited investor limit does not change. These managers are still limited to 99 individual investors. For 3(c)(7) funds, previously the limit was 499 investors. Now, that can be bumped up to 1999 investors. For 3(c)(7) funds, though, all investors must be qualified purchasers, which is actually a higher threshold than that of accredited investors.

Q: What do these marketing rules have to do with the JOBS Act, and why are they a part of it?

A: You have a couple things going on here. As people have been pointing out for a number of years, most of these securities laws were written in the 1930s, with the last one in 1940. The general nature of the industry has changed over the years; the JOBS Act is a reaction to some of the problems with these laws. Technological advances, and the ability of the internet to be a means of connecting with people in a way to market to potential investors – securities laws just do not address those issues. The JOBS Act was trying to find a way to balance investor protection of the securities laws with the ability for managers to go out and communicate and have a sort of certainty with respect to their activities on the internet.

Q: How will this change the way funds structure communication, such as on their web sites?

A: There is going to be a wide range of ways managers will be allowed to advertise. You will see more information available on their web sites and on hedge fund databases. You are also more likely to see hedge funds marketed in publications such as the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. There has also been talk that big fund complexes may have public advertising in sporting venues and such. I don’t know if it will come to that, but we are definitely going to see more fund managers trying to get out in front of the investing public and getting their name out there more. It will be interesting to see the avenues with which managers will use.

Q: Critics have suggested that this will be an invitation to some of the less scrupulous operators to come out of the woodwork to take advantage of the new rules. Do you see a problem with that?

A: Certainly, this is going to make the job of securities regulators much more difficult. Right now, with the restrictions, you don’t have a lot of managers out there touting performance and those sorts of things. Once you open up the floodgates and everyone starts doing it, it will be a lot harder for the SEC and for the state regulators to keep on top of what all these managers are showing. From a regulatory standpoint, in asking these agencies to enforce these securities laws and protect the investing public amid this deluge of advertising, I think becomes a tough task for the regulators. Savvy marketing people who might not have the best of intentions with respect to customer protections will have an easier time meeting population targets. That is one of the things Congress had to weigh when creating this law – investor protection versus capital formation and spurring the economy.

Q: The SEC has been given a timetable for the creation of a framework for these new rules. What do you expect to see in the SEC rulemaking?

A: I imagine we will see a lot of rulemaking on recordkeeping, and also on being able to back up any statements made in any advertising materials. It is clear that managers are going to need to make sure their investors are accredited investors, so I think there could be more of an onus on managers to do more fact-checking with respect to their investors.

But it really depends on how aggressive the SEC wants to be with respect to overseeing solicitations. The SEC is already an underfunded agency, so if they create more onerous rules for themselves to implement and oversee, they will be taking away from themselves internally. They have their own political balance they need to strike between promulgating rules that they can actually enforce, versus investor protection.

Bart Mallon is a partner and co-founder of Cole-Frieman Mallon & Hunt LLP, a San-Francisco-based law firm specializing in hedge fund and alternative investment legal services. His areas of specialization include setting up offshore hedge funds and separately managed structured accounts, and registration issues. Mallon is also the author of the Hedge Fund Law blog.

****

Cole-Frieman Mallon & Hunt provide legal advice to hedge fund managers with respect to all aspects of their business including marketing under the new JOBS Act provisions. Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

New York City Unicorporated Business Tax Update

Recent Audits May Impact Fund Structures and Management Company Expenses

There may be a number of reasons for a manager to create separate legal entities to serve as the management company and a fund’s general partner. In particular, New York-based managers have typically done this due to New York City’s tax treatment of fees earned by fund managers. However, a recent move by the New York City Department of Finance (the “Department”) may hearken a change to this approach, and the manner in which fund managers analyze and document their expenses.

Background on New York UBT

New York City’s Unincorporated Business Tax (“UBT”) currently is, and has been historically, imposed only on management fees earned in the city, but not on incentive allocations. This tax treatment was formally approved by a statutory amendment to the UBT law over 15 years ago. For this reason, fund managers have formed one entity to be the management company that will receive the asset-based management fees, and another entity to serve as a fund’s general partner and receive the profits-based incentive allocations.

Management fees are generally used to cover both the management of the fund, and the administrative operations of the management company. Expenses related to these functions are deductible against gross income when calculating the management company’s UBT liability. The tax rate is 4% of the net UBT income.

The incentive allocations to the general partner are excluded from UBT on the basis of a statutory exemption for entities that are “primarily engaged” in self-trading for its owners and does not otherwise operate a business in New York city, as defined in the UBT law (this is because all of the administrative/operational functions are performed by the management company).

Developments in the New York City Department of Finance

Recent audits by the Department may portend a shift in this tax treatment and hence, implications for fund managers in how they structure and run their businesses. Specifically, the Department asserted that some portion of a management company’s operating expenses is ultimately attributable to tax exempt income. Because of this, the Department determined that at least some of these expenses should not be used to reduce the management company’s UBT liability. In effect, this approach will attribute some of the expenses to the tax-exempt incentive allocation that the general partner earns, rather than allowing 100% of such expenses to offset the management fee. Put more bluntly, the Department will disallow some of a management company’s expenses in calculating the net UBT income.

Interestingly, while the redistribution of tax among entities under common control is explicitly permitted under Federal tax law, the UBT law is silent on this question, though some commentators suggest that authority for this is implied because the UBT calculation starts with Federal taxable income.

As a result of this new approach, the management company’s net UBT income would increase to the extent that expenses are disallowed, and the management company would owe more tax. In years where performance is significantly up (meaning a higher incentive allocation), the tax increase would likely be more pronounced; in contrast, when performance is down and there is no allocation, the management company may still be permitted to deduct expenses as it has done previously.

Conclusion

It is important to note that the Department’s approach in the audits has not been formally adopted, nor implemented in the UBT law itself. However, given the unpredictability inherent in the Department’s expense-shifting approach in the audits, we recommend that New York-based fund managers evaluate their expenses and carefully document how they relate to the operations of the management company to maximize the ability to deduct them for purposes of calculating their net UBT income.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon provides hedge fund formation and other legal services to managers in New York and throughout the country.  Bart Mallon can be contacted directly at 415-868-5345.

Requesting a Waiver from NFA Enhanced Supervisory Requirements

Member Firms Subject to ESRs May Seek Waiver

As we have discussed previously, an NFA Member firm may be required to adopt enhanced supervisory requirements (“ESR”) based on:

  • the employment history of its APs and Principals,
  • the affiliations of its Principals,
  • if the firm charges 50% or more of its active customers round-turn commissions, fees and other charges that total $100 or more per futures, forex or option contract, or
  • it becomes subject to NFA or CFTC enforcement or disciplinary proceedings.

If a Member firm meets any of the criteria requiring it to adopt ESRs, it may request a waiver from these requirements. This post discusses how a firm may request such a waiver and what the NFA will consider in granting or denying the waiver.

Requesting a Waiver

To request a waiver from enhanced supervisory requirements, a Member firm may file a petition with the NFA’s three-person Telemarketing Procedures Waiver Committee (the “TPWC”) for a partial or full waiver from the requirement to adopt ESRs.  The firm must file the petition with the TPWC within 30 days of receiving notice from the NFA that the firm is required to adopt ESRs.  This deadline is important because failure to timely file the request will prohibit the firm from filing the waiver again until at least 2 years after the firm adopts the ESRs.  If the TPWC denies the waiver, the firm is also prohibited from filing the waiver again until at least 2 years after the firm adopts the ESRs.

Factors the NFA Will Consider

The TPWC may consider the following factors when evaluating a waiver request:

  • total number and the backgrounds of APs sponsored by the Member;
  • number of branch offices and guaranteed introducing brokers (“GIBs”) operated by the Member;
  • experience and background of the Member’s supervisory personnel;
  • number of the Member’s APs who had received training from firms which have been closed for fraud, the length of time those APs worked for those firms and the amount of time which has elapsed since those APs worked for the disciplined firms;
  • results of any previous NFA examinations;
  • cost effectiveness of the taping requirement in light of the firm’s net worth, operating income and related telemarketing expenses;
  • whether the Member assesses commissions, fees and other charges that are based on all of the relevant circumstances, including the expense of executing orders and the value of services the Member renders based on its experience and knowledge; and
  • whether the Member adequately discloses the amount of commissions, fees and other charges before transactions occur in light of a retail customer’s trading experience and the impact that the commissions, fees and other charges may have on the likelihood of profit.

Conditions on Waiver

Even if the TPWC grants a full or partial waiver, it will still impose certain requirements on the firm. The firm must:

  • notify the NFA of any actions charging it with violation of CFTC, SEC, or other self-regulatory organization’s (“SRO”) regulations or rules;
  • notify the NFA of any customer complaints involving sales practices or promotional material;
  • not change ownership;
  • not have any material deficiencies noted during any SRO examination;
  • not hire additional APs from Disciplined Firms;
  • execute a written acknowledgement that the firm understands the conditions of the waiver;
  • and may include any other conditions deemed by the TPWC to be appropriate in consideration of a total or partial waiver from the enhanced supervisory requirements.

If the firm violates these conditions, the TPWC may revoke or amend the wavier that was previously granted.

Conclusion

The ESRs impose more strict requirements on Member firms.  It is important for a firm to evaluate the employment history of its APs and Principals to determine whether the firm meets the criteria set forth in NFA Interpretive Notice 9021 and must therefore adopt the ESRs or seek a waiver from such requirements. If a firm receives a notice from the NFA that it must adopt ESRs and it wishes to request a waiver, it should act quickly. Failure to file a petition within 30 days will bar the firm from filing a request for at least 2 years after it adopts the ESRs.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP provides comprehensive legal services to CFTC registered managers.  The firm also provides NFA registration and compliance support.  Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.