Save the Date! CoinAlts Fund Symposium on October 26th in San Francisco

Mark your calendar! CoinAlts presents the annual Fund Symposium on October 26, 2023, in San Francisco. Founded in 2017, this premier event brings together the digital asset community to address investment, legal, and operational issues specifically relevant to private fund managers. Premier sponsor industry leaders Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, MG Stover LLC, Harneys, and KPMG are dedicated to supporting fund managers in the digital asset space.

The Fund Symposium is a must-attend gathering for industry professionals, providing unparalleled insights and networking opportunities. Join us for expert panels, top-notch speakers, and the chance to stay ahead of the curve in this rapidly evolving industry. Registration is now open on the CoinAlts Fund Symposium website: https://coinalts.xyz/event/coinalts-2023/#tribe-tickets. #CoinAlts2023

***

About the CoinAlts Fund Symposium

The CoinAlts Fund Symposium is organized by four firms with practices significantly devoted to fund managers in the cryptocurrency and digital asset space. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a leading investment management law firm known for providing top-tier, innovative, and collaborative legal solutions for complex financial service matters. MG Stover & Co. is a full-service fund administration firm built by former auditors and fund operators to deliver world-class solutions to the global alternative investment industry. Harneys is a leading international offshore law firm that acts for both issuers of digital assets and investment funds that invest in them. KPMG is a global leader in professional services that specializes in providing comprehensive advisory and consulting services to fund managers in the cryptocurrency and digital asset industry.

Launching a Retail Forex Hedge Fund

Recently, there seems to be a substantial uptick in manager demand to launch hedge funds that primarily invest in off-exchange forex transactions with retail customers (such transactions, “Retail Forex”). Retail Forex differs from traditional exchange-traded foreign currency futures (e.g., CME Swiss Franc or Japanese Yen futures) in that the trading does not take place on an “organized exchange” (such as the CME, CBOT or other board of trade), but rather occurs on specialized electronic venues that are registered as a futures commission merchant (“FCM”) or a retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”).

Before launching a hedge fund that invests in Retail Forex, managers must be aware of the registration requirements imposed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as enforced by the National Futures Association (“NFA”). In most instances, a manager will need to register as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) if it plans to trade Retail Forex. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP (“CFM”) has extensive experience assisting clients navigate this complex regulatory environment.

CFTC Jurisdiction and Registration Requirements

Following the 2008 Financial Crisis, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) which amended the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to provide the CFTC with jurisdiction over Retail Forex. Specifically, Sections 2(c)(2)(B) and 2(c)(2)(C) of the CEA confer jurisdiction over any agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency:

  • that is a future entered into with a person that is not an eligible contract participant (“ECP”) (i.e., a derivatives Retail Forex transaction); or
  • offered to, or entered into with a person that is not an ECP on a leveraged or margined basis (i.e., a leveraged spot Retail Forex transaction).

A retail customer is any party to a Retail Forex trade who is not an ECP. ECPs generally include (i) individuals and entities with assets of more than $10 million and (ii) entities formed by a registered CPO with assets of more than $5 million. However, except as discussed below, a pooled investment vehicle does not qualify as an ECP with respect to Retail Forex unless all of its direct participants qualify as ECPs, even if the pool has assets in excess of the thresholds denoted above (the “Look-Through Rule”). Importantly, unless the manager is registered as a CPO, a non-ECP pool generally may not trade Retail Forex on an FCM or an RFED.

Therefore, a manager that trades in Retail Forex on behalf of a pooled investment vehicle must generally register with the NFA as a CPO and “Forex Firm.” This means that at least one principal and associated person of the manager must pass the Series 3 (National Commodities Future Exam) and Series 34 (Retail Off-Exchange Forex Exam) administered by FINRA.

Disclosure Document and Disclosure Obligations

Generally, absent any exemptive relief (discussed below), a registered CPO of a Retail Forex hedge fund must deliver an NFA-approved “Disclosure Document” (i.e., a PPM) to prospective investors by no later than the time it delivers a subscription agreement to such prospective investors. Importantly, the Disclosure Document must be filed with the NFA using the NFA’s Electronic Disclosure Document Filing System prior to its delivery to prospective investors. The Disclosure Document must include:

  • general disclosures (e.g., risk factors [including Retail Forex-specific risk factors], general information about the CPO’s principal(s), and description of the investment program);
  • performance disclosures (e.g., past performance of other pools/accounts, monthly rate of return of the pool, and
  • fee disclosures (e.g., brokerage commissions, fees incurred to maintain open Retail Forex positions, and fees or costs included in the bid/ask spread).

Retail Forex pools must also include additional risk disclosures related to the potential insolvency of their counterparties, their status as a creditor in such insolvency, and the fact that they may receive lesser protections on their margin deposits versus exchange-traded futures.

Qualifying as an ECP, Exemptions from CPO Registration and Disclosure Relief

As may be evident, full CPO registration and Disclosure Document approval can be a long, resource-intensive journey; however, our process-oriented approach at CFM can help shorten lead times and preserve resources. Additionally, there are a number of potential exemptions we analyze for clients that may reduce certain disclosure obligations or eliminate the need to register as a CPO altogether.

Pools that Qualify as ECPs/De Minimis Exemption

Notwithstanding the Look-Through Rule mentioned above, a Retail Forex pool can qualify as an ECP if the pool:

  • is not formed for the purpose of evading the CEA;
  • has total assets exceeding $10 million; and
  • is formed and operated (i) by a registered CPO or (ii) by a CPO who is exempt from registration pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) (the “De Minimis Exemption”).

Assuming the assets test is met, and while not relieving the CPO registration requirement, clause (i) allows pools in which not all participants are themselves ECPs to engage in Retail Forex. Clause (ii) provides a similar result (the pool can trade Retail Forex), but is particularly helpful for managers that only trade a de minimis amount (perhaps as a minor element of the pool’s overall investment program) since the manager would not have to register as a CPO. Among other requirements, the De Minimis Exemption requires that:

  • the pool at all times meets one of the following tests:
    • the aggregate initial margin required to establish commodity interest positions (including Retail Forex) does not exceed 5% of the liquidation value of the pool’s portfolio; or
    • the aggregate net notional value of the pool’s commodity interest positions does not exceed 100% of the liquidation value of the pool’s portfolio; and
  • the exempt CPO makes the required notice filing with the NFA.

Actual Delivery

A leveraged spot Retail Forex transaction as described above does not constitute Retail Forex if it results in “actual delivery” (i.e., a physical exchange of one currency for another) within two days. In such situations, there is no CPO registration requirement assuming all such leveraged transactions fulfill the actual delivery requirement.

CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(2)

CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(2) provides an exemption from CPO registration for managers that:

  • only operate pools with 15 or fewer participants at any time; and
  • the total gross capital contributions such pools receive do not in the aggregate exceed $400,000.

Notably, contributions by the principals and certain of their family members do not count toward the $400,000 limit. This exemption may be particularly useful for managers intending to operate a Retail Forex incubator fund.

CFTC Rule 4.7

CFTC Rule 4.7 exemptive relief is available to pools whose participants all meet the higher qualified eligible persons (“QEPs”) standard (generally, (i) an accredited investor with a $2 million investment portfolio or (ii) a qualified purchaser). Although the manager of such a pool must still fully register as a CPO, the upshot is that the Disclosure Document does not need to be reviewed and approved by the NFA and the pool obtains certain other disclosure, reporting, and recordkeeping relief. This partial exemptive relief could be beneficial for large Retail Forex pools with institutional investors that otherwise do not qualify for the De Minimis Exemption.

Conclusion

The Retail Forex regulatory landscape has become increasingly complex post-Dodd-Frank and managers wishing to pursue investment strategies in Retail Forex should map out a process early on to ensure their trading is CFTC/NFA compliant. CFM specializes in this process and helps both emerging and established managers alike register as CPOs, if necessary, and confidently launch funds that invest in Retail Forex.

Authored by Anthony Wise, Partner at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP

Cole-Frieman & Mallon 2023 Q1 Update

April 20, 2023

Clients, Friends, and Associates:

As we end the first quarter and enter the spring season, we would like to highlight some of the recent industry updates and occurrences we found to be both interesting and impactful. While we try to keep these topics at a higher level, please feel free to explore the links included and reach out to us if you have any related questions.

****

CFM Items

We are pleased to announce the addition of John T. Araneo to our firm as Partner to lead our Cybersecurity Law practice. We’d also like to highlight the promotion of Frank J. Martin to Partner and Firm General Counsel. Additionally, we have hired Marcia Delgadillo as Director of Marketing & Business Development to manage our firm’s marketing and business development activities. Please join us in welcoming them all to our firm.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon is hosting a panel discussion on “Navigating the SEC Marketing Rule: Practical Considerations for Fund Managers,” on May 4th in San Francisco. CFM Partner David Rothschild and Senior Associate Malhar Oza will be joined by Managing Director Michael Fitzgerald of TD Cowen and Chief Executive Officer Fizza Khan of Silver Regulatory Associates LLC for a lively discussion. For details, contact [email protected].

****

SEC Matters


SEC Charges Staking-as-a-Service Provider. On February 9, 2023, the Security and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged Payward Ventures, Inc. and Payward Trading Ltd. (“Kraken”) with failing to register the offer and sale of their crypto asset staking-as-a-service program. In operation since 2019, Kraken’s program allowed public investors to transfer crypto related assets to Kraken for staking in exchange for annual investment returns advertised by Kraken to be as high as 21%. Kraken’s model depended on pooling the assets transferred by investors and staking them on behalf of those investors. The SEC’s complaint alleges that the program produced benefits derived from Kraken’s effort on behalf of investors and that the program should be considered an investment contract subject to registration, disclosure, and safeguard protections required by securities laws. As a result of the charge, Kraken has agreed to cease offering or selling securities through crypto asset staking services and pay $30 million in settlement fees. Although the SEC’s complaint did not allege that staking necessarily always constitutes a security offering, it was determined that this service offered by Kraken did meet the 4-prong test to be considered an investment contract. This signals that the SEC may be increasingly more aggressive at regulating crypto under existing rules and regulations, and managers should consider whether staking services offered by third parties would fit into the Kraken fact pattern.

The SEC’s New Proposed Rule Regarding Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets. In February, the SEC announced a proposed rule to amend the existing “custody rule” applicable to SEC registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) that have custody of client assets. The proposed rule, redesignated as the “safeguarding rule,” imposes potentially significant new requirements on RIAs, including RIAs operating in the digital asset space.

The Existing Custody Rule. As background, the existing custody rule requires any RIA that has custody of client assets to keep “client funds and securities” with a “qualified custodian” at all times. To-date practitioners have debated the extent to which digital assets are captured in the definition of “client funds and securities” and thus whether these requirements apply to RIAs with custody of clients’ digital assets. A qualified custodian generally is a federal or state-chartered bank or savings association, certain trust companies, a registered broker-dealer, a registered futures commission merchant, or certain foreign financial institutions.

Key Elements of the Proposed Safeguarding Rule. The proposed safeguarding rule would make several important changes to the custody rule. Most importantly to digital asset managers, it would expand the existing custody requirements to cover all “client assets” over which an RIA has custody, explicitly including digital assets. It would also require RIAs to enter into written agreements with qualified custodians to ensure basic custodial protections are in place, including requiring a qualified custodian to obtain written internal control reports that include an opinion of an independent public accountant regarding the adequacy of the qualified custodian’s controls. The proposed safeguarding rule would provide a transition period of one year for large advisers and 18 months for smaller advisers to comply with the new rule.

Potential Implications for Crypto RIAs. If implemented as drafted, the proposed safeguarding rule would require RIAs who operate in the digital asset space to custody their digital assets with qualified custodians at all times – no exceptions. While qualified custodians exist today that can custody certain digital assets, there are no qualified custodians that can custody all digital assets. Moreover, when a crypto RIA wants to trade digital assets on an exchange, the crypto RIA would have to move digital assets out of a qualified custodian and on to the crypto exchange. There are currently no crypto exchanges that are qualified custodians, so it may be impossible for crypto RIAs to comply with the proposed safeguarding rule at all times. If adopted as proposed, RIAs could find it much harder to operate in the digital asset space.

Next Steps. We encourage our clients to review the proposed rule and consider submitting comments to the SEC highlighting potential issues and ways to improve the proposed rule. Comments should be received on or before May 8, 2023. Electronic comments may be submitted via the SEC’s internet comment form or by sending an email to [email protected]. Commenters should include File Number S7-04-23 on the subject line if submitting by email. After the May 8, 2023, comment deadline, the staff of the SEC will review the comments and potentially revise the proposed rule. The proposed rule, and any revisions to it, would only become effective after the SEC commissioners vote to approve it as a final rule.

The SEC’s Proposed Cyber Risk Management Rule for Investment Advisers. Last February, the SEC released a proposed rule that portends to create an entirely new cybersecurity compliance regime for investment advisers and certain funds. This new set of cybersecurity risk management rules (the “Cyber Risk Management Rule”) will be codified by amendments to both the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. As drafted, the Cyber Risk Management Rule has four (4) cornerstone components: (i) policies and procedures; (ii) a new regulatory reporting regime (including a 48-hour notification period for alerting the SEC of a cybersecurity breach); (iii) cybersecurity disclosure obligations; and (iv) recordkeeping requirements. The Cyber Risk Management Rule was set for a final vote this month, however on March 15, 2023 the SEC unexpectedly reopened its comment period for an additional sixty (60) days, while simultaneously issuing three (3) additional cybersecurity related rule proposals, each with some connective tissue with the Cyber Risk Management Rule.

Cybersecurity continues to be a top priority at the SEC and it has made clear that a new, more mature and comprehensive cybersecurity compliance regime is imminent. Advisers and funds who may mistakenly kick the cybersecurity can down the road in 2023 will likely do so at their peril, primarily for two reasons. First, the SEC still requires registrants to comply with its current cybersecurity requirements, to wit, conducting annual assessments and implementing reasonable policies, procedures, and controls across the core seven (7) elements that constitute a model cybersecurity program (governance and periodic assessments; access rights and controls; data loss prevention; mobile security; incident response; vendor management; and training and awareness (collectively, the “Cyber 7”)). Second, the new regime, via proposed rule 206(4)-9 of the Investment Advisers Act, will actually make it unlawful for a registered adviser to provide investment advice to clients if it fails to adopt and implement these policies and procedures and conduct these periodic assessments. This rule alone is a clear, direct statutory line in the sand that adds one more arrow in the quiver of the SEC’s ample Cyber Unit, which continues to actively pursue penalties against those registrants that fail to meet these threshold requirements.

Fortunately, since the new Cyber Risk Management Rule takes a cumulative approach in setting these new cyber standards, virtually all the advancements asset managers have made in complying with the current Cyber 7 since 2015 will be relevant and accretive to the new requirements. Cybersecurity is indeed a process, as opposed to a project. Demonstrating continued engagement and reasonable progress is the key to cracking the code on cybersecurity compliance, at least in terms of meeting regulatory requirements and the ODD expectations of institutional investors. And thus, advisers need to act now in either creating or sufficiently maintaining an appropriately scaled model cybersecurity set of policies, procedures and controls (a “Cybersecurity Program”). The Firm’s Cybersecurity Law Practice Group is available to assist our clients with any questions or concerns regarding virtually any aspect of cybersecurity compliance.

SEC and NYDFS Commence Actions Against Paxos. The New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) recently ordered Paxos Trust Company (“Paxos”) to cease minting Paxos-issued BUSD, a fiat-backed stablecoin issued by Binance and Paxos. Each BUSD token is backed 1:1 with US dollars held in reserve. On February 13, 2023, Paxos notified customers of its intent to end its relationship with Binance as a result of the order.

In conjunction with the order from the NYDFS, Paxos reports that it received a Wells notice from the SEC on February 3, 2023. According to a press release from Paxos, the Wells notice states the SEC is considering enforcement action against Paxos alleging that BUSD is an unregistered security. The actions by the NYDFS and SEC could have important implications for stablecoins since it appears that regulators are taking the stance that fiat-backed stablecoins could be securities even though they are intended to function as currency and there would not be an expectation of profit simply by owning them. Moreover, the NYDFS order and SEC Wells notice only appear to target BUSD, while Paxos separately issues a second fiat-backed stablecoin called USDP. It is unclear why USDP appears to be spared so we await further action by regulators and will monitor this situation.

SEC Files Wells Notice Against Coinbase. Coinbase Global Inc. (“Coinbase”) also recently received a Wells notice from the SEC, targeting Coinbase’s staking service Coinbase Earn, Coinbase Prime, and Coinbase Wallet. The Wells notice stems from an SEC investigation conducted into Coinbase in the summer of 2022. Our firm will continue to closely monitor the situation with Coinbase for new developments.

SEC Releases a “Frequently Asked Questions” Page for the Marketing Rule. In January, the SEC released a FAQ page for questions stemming from its recently enacted rule 206(4)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Marketing Rule.”) The page currently provides responses to three commonly asked questions—most notably regarding its gross and net performance rules—clarifying that when an RIA displays the gross performance of one investment or a group of investments from a private fund, the RIA must show the net performance of the single investment and/or the group of investments, respectively. The SEC noted that they will be updating this page periodically to respond to questions related to the Marketing Rule, and clients should reach out with any specific questions relating to the new Marketing Rule. Our firm will be hosting an event on May 4th to be a discussion of the practical considerations for fund managers under the recently reviewed marking rule, and hope that you all will join us.

Judge Rules that Emojis in a Tweet may Constitute “Financial Advice.” A United States District Court judge recently ruled that the use of emojis can be construed in certain circumstances to meet a factor in the legal test to determine whether an individual is providing financial advice. Specifically, the judge denied the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that the defendant-company’s use of a rocket ship, stock chart, and money bag emojis in a recent tweet “objectively meant one thing: a financial return on investment.” The emojis were displayed alongside statements touting recent NFT purchase prices on the company’s website, presumably indicating future gains on such NFTs. While the decision specifically rules on the three emojis mentioned above, we advise our clients to use caution in their use of any emojis, whether that be in public or private communications regarding fund matters. In any event, any communications should not be misleading and in accordance with the advisers act and the new marketing rule (if applicable).

****

Digital Asset Matters

Liability Issues and Third-Party Engagement in DAOs. As the formation of and investment in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (“DAOs”) continue to garner attention within the investment community, it is important for DAO participants to continue to analyze how they participate. First, as noted in our July 2022 Quarterly Update, managers should consider only participating or investing in DAOs that are wrapped in a liability blocking entity in order to reduce the risk of personal liability. Second, as an added measure of liability protection, managers should consider participating or investing through special purpose vehicles specific to such activity (e.g., a fund making two DAO investments could segregate each investment through separate, wholly-owned subsidiaries). Third, managers should consider only participating or investing in DAOs that have engaged reputable third-party service providers such as administrators, accountants, tax counsel and, in the case of foreign foundations, independent directors. The use of such independent third-party service providers may help ensure proper functioning and allocation of resources of the DAO, thereby helping to protect its participants.

****

Other Items

The Ninth Circuit Blocks California’s Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements. On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California bill which would have prevented employers from requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. The court held that California Assembly Bill 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, which “embodies a national policy favoring arbitration.” After years of uncertainty surrounding the issue, the decision solidifies that employers in California can continue to include mandatory arbitration provisions in their employment agreements.

****

Compliance Calendar

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

April 7, 2023

  • Form N-MFP Filing for Monthly Schedule of Portfolio Holdings of Money Market Funds, if applicable.

April 10, 2023

  • Form 13H Quarterly Filing for Changes. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended March 31, 2023 and should be submitted within 10 days of quarter end. 
  • Form 13G Monthly Filing for Applicable Reporting Persons. Filing is for month end of March 31, 2023, and should be submitted within 10 days of month end. 

April 15, 2023

  • Form PF Quarterly Filing for Large Liquidity Fund Advisers. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended March 31, 2023.

April 30, 2023

  • Form ADV Part 2A Delivery to Existing Clients. 
  • Audited Financials Distribution to Private Fund Investors (excluding Fund of Funds).
  • Form PF Annual Filing. Filing is for fiscal year end December 31, 2022 and should be submitted within 120 days of fiscal year end. 

May 10, 2023

  • Form 13G Monthly Filing for Applicable Reporting Persons. Filing is for month end of April 31, 2023, and should be submitted within 10 days of month end. 

May 15, 2023

  • Form 13F Quarterly Filing for Changes. Filing is for Calendar Quarter that ended March 31, 2023 and should generally be submitted within 45 days of quarter end.
  • Form CTA-PR Filing with the NFA, which can be filed through NFA’s EasyFile.

May 30, 2023

  • Form CPO-PQR Filing with the NFA, which can be filed through NFA’s EasyFile.
  • Form PF Quarterly Filing for Large Hedge Fund Traders and Large Liquidity Fund Advisers, if applicable.
  • Form N-PORT Filing Monthly Schedule of Portfolio Holdings of Funds other than Money Markey Funds and SBICs, if applicable. 

 June 7, 2023

  • Form N-MFP Filing for Monthly Schedule of Portfolio Holdings of Money Market Funds, if applicable. 

June 10, 2023

  • Form 13G Monthly Filing for Applicable Reporting Persons. Filing is for month end of May 31, 2023, and should be submitted within 10 days of month end. 
  • Audited Financials Distribution to Fund of Funds Investors. 

Periodic

  • Fund Managers should perform “Bad Actor” certifications annually.
  • Form D and Blue Sky Filings should be current.
  • CPO/CTA Annual Questionnaires must be submitted annually, and promptly upon material information changes, through NFA Annual Questionnaire system.

Consult our complete Compliance Calendar for all 2023 critical dates as you plan your regulatory compliance timeline for the year. 

Please contact us with any questions or assistance regarding compliance, registration, or planning issues on any of the above topics.

Sincerely,

Karl Cole-Frieman, Bart Mallon, Lilly Palmer, David Rothschild, Scott Kitchens, Tony Wise, Alex Yastremski, Garret Filler, Frank J. Martin, and John T. Araneo

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a leading investment management law firm known for providing top-tier, innovative, and collaborative legal solutions for complex financial services matters. Headquartered in San Francisco, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP services both start-up investment managers and multibillion-dollar funds. The firm provides a full suite of legal services to the investment management community, including fund formation (hedge, VC, PE, real estate), investment adviser and CPO registration, counterparty documentation (digital and traditional prime brokerage, ISDA, repo, and vendor agreements), SEC, CFTC, NFA and FINRA matters (inquiries, exams, and compliance issues), seed deals, cybersecurity regulatory matters, full-service intellectual property counsel, manager due diligence, employment and compensation matters, and routine business matters. The firm also publishes the prominent Hedge Fund Law Blog. For more information, please add us on LinkedIn, follow us on Twitter, and visit us at colefrieman.com.

Principals in Transition: Protect, Prevent, Preserve

TRANSITIONS MATTER.

Done well, they are the first step in a new and exciting chapter for senior investment management professionals. Gone wrong, they can lead to years of acrimonious litigation and missed professional opportunities. When senior investment management employees or partners leave their current firms to join another or start their own, navigating this critical moment requires a deep understanding of the legal and contractual basis of their current arrangements, an honest understanding of the relationship between the principal and their current firm, and a clear set of objectives.

At Cole-Frieman & Mallon (“CFM”), our Principals in Transition practice focuses on the Three Ps – Protecting the departing principal’s economics, Preventing limitations on future professional endeavors, and Preserving the relationship with the principal’s current firm. Protect, Prevent, Preserve. We are industry experts, not employment law litigators, and our ecosystem expertise is both our strategic advantage in these negotiations and an important message to the principal’s current organization that preservation of the relationship is important. We come to facilitate a smooth and fair transition, not to write demand letters or instigate litigation. We achieve this by: 1) bringing our fund expertise when analyzing current partnership agreements, 2) our knowledge of California’s and other jurisdictions’ public policy against non-competition including overreaching non-solicit clauses and overly broad confidentiality restrictions that courts have ruled operate as non-competes, and 3) an understanding that while the investment management ecosystem is global in nature, it is a small community and relationships (among managers, allocators, and LPs) matter.

All of this is done without limiting the principal’s ability to escalate if necessary. There is a time and place for litigation, and when it becomes clear that the best route for our client is litigation, transitioning from the Three Ps approach to another tactic with litigation counsel is seamless.

Protect your economics. Partnership agreements and carried interest grant agreements are complex documents with many hidden (and not so hidden) powers vested in the controlling parties. Understanding how investment funds and the economics of investment funds work is our specialty.

Prevent limitations on future professional endeavors. Few people leave investment managers intending to leave the industry. Most, in fact, are leaving to start their own venture or join another investment manager doing substantially similar work. The key to these negotiations is to ensure that whatever limitations are connected to future economic benefits from the principal’s previous organization are narrowly tailored. Central to this is understanding the principal’s statutory and common law rights in California and other jurisdictions that have a public policy against non-competition agreements. In furtherance of this public policy, California and other state courts have become increasingly hostile to non-solicit and overly broad confidentiality agreements that operate to restrain a person’s ability to work.

Preserve your relationship. CFM’s approach is designed to preserve the relationship with the principal’s current investment manager. The elements necessary to achieve this are: 1) being reasonable in the principal’s requests on economics and limitations, 2) approaching the negotiations collaboratively, 3) having a clear understanding of the other side’s objectives and finding ways to get them what they need from the transition, and 4) being thoughtful in whom you hire to handle this transition. Because CFM is embedded in the investment management ecosystem, hiring our firm in these matters signals the principal’s desire to “get the numbers right,” to ensure that the principal has the freedom they need to start their next endeavor, and perhaps most importantly that this will all be achieved in a collaborative way.

Authored by Frank J. Martin, Partner & General Counsel at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP

Cole-Frieman & Mallon 2022 End Of Year Update

December 2022

Clients, Friends, Associates:

As we near the end of 2022, we have highlighted some recent industry updates that we believe may impact our clients. We have also developed a checklist to help managers effectively oversee the business and regulatory landscape for the coming year. While we strive to present an informative, albeit brief, overview of these topics, we are also available should you have any related questions.


This update includes the following:

  • Q4 Matters
  • Annual Compliance & Other Items
  • Annual Fund Matters
  • Annual Management Company Matters
  • Notable Regulatory & Other Items from 2022
  • Compliance Calendar

****

Q4 Matters

New York Federal Reserve Digital Dollar Pilot Project. In collaboration with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and several private sector financial institutions, the New York Innovation Center (“NYIC”) recently announced a pilot program to test the operability of digital asset transactions between financial institutions using the U.S. dollar as token. Although the project is being conducted in a purely experimental fashion using simulated data, the pilot can be seen as one of the first steps taken by a governmental agency towards creating a central bank digital currency.

SEC v. LBRY. In November, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment against LBRY, Inc., holding that LBRY offered a crypto asset in violation of the registration provisions of federal securities laws. The case addresses a fundamental issue in the crypto universe — whether blockchain tokens are considered securities by the SEC.  The Court concluded that LBRY’s messaging would lead potential investors to understand that the company was pitching speculative value propositions for its digital token that created an expectation of profits under the Howey test.  We generally advise that managers and others in the digital asset space should assume that the SEC considers all blockchain tokens to be securities, subject to SEC regulation and applicable registration requirements. 

FTX. Our firm, like many others, continues to develop our understanding of the recent events related to FTX, what users of the exchange can and should expect going forward, and how it will affect the digital asset space generally. We have included links to our initial blog post and podcast below touching on the FTX situation. Stay tuned for additional information through multiple channels in the days and weeks ahead.

****

Annual Compliance & Other Items

Annual Privacy Policy Notice. On an annual basis, SEC-registered investment advisers (“SEC RIAs”) are required to provide natural person clients with a copy of the firm’s privacy policy if: (i) the SEC RIA has disclosed nonpublic personal information other than in connection with servicing consumer accounts or administering financial products; or (ii) the firm’s privacy policy has changed. The SEC has provided a model form and accompanying instructions for firm privacy policies. 

Annual Compliance Review. The Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) of a registered investment advisor (“RIA”) must conduct a review of the adviser’s compliance policies and procedures annually. This annual compliance review should be in writing and presented to senior management. CCOs should consider additions, revisions, and updates to the compliance program as may be necessary. We recommend firms discuss the annual review with their outside counsel or compliance firm to obtain guidance about the review process and a template for the assessment. Conversations regarding the annual review may raise sensitive matters, and advisers should ensure that these discussions are protected by attorney-client privilege. Advisers that are not registered may still wish to review their procedures and/or implement a compliance program as a best practice.

Form ADV Annual Amendment. RIAs or managers filing as exempt reporting advisers (“ERAs”) with the SEC or a state securities authority must file an annual amendment to their Form ADV within 90 days of the end of their fiscal year. For most managers, the Form ADV amendment will be due on March 31, 2023. 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” and, if applicable, Part 3 (Form CRS: Client Relationship Summary) to each “retail investor” with which the RIA has entered into an investment advisory contract. Note that for SEC RIAs to private investment vehicles, a “client” for purposes of this rule refers to the vehicle(s) managed by the adviser and not the underlying investors. State-registered advisers need to examine their states’ regulations to determine who constitutes a “client.” For purposes of the Form ADV Part 3, a “retail investor” means a natural person, or the legal representative of such natural person, who seeks to receive or receives services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Switching to/from SEC Regulation.

SEC Registration. Managers who no longer qualify for SEC registration as of the time of filing the annual Form ADV amendment must withdraw from SEC registration within 180 days after the end of their fiscal year (June 30, 2023, for most managers), by filing a Form ADV-W. Such managers should consult with legal counsel to determine whether they are required to register in the states in which they conduct business. 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 (June 30, 2023, for most managers, assuming the annual amendment is filed on March 31, 2023).

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, as applicable, generally within 90 days after the filing of the annual amendment (June 30, 2023, for most managers, assuming the annual amendment is filed on March 31, 2023).

Custody Rule Annual Audit.

SEC RIAs. SEC RIAs must comply with specific 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.

SEC RIAs to pooled investment vehicles may avoid both the quarterly statement and surprise examination requirements by having audited financial statements prepared for each pooled investment vehicle in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) by an independent public accountant registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”). Audited financial statements must be sent to investors in the fund within 120 days after the fund’s fiscal year-end (or for fund-of-fund clients, within 180 days after fiscal year-end). SEC RIAs should review their internal procedures to ensure compliance with the custody rules.

California RIAs. California-registered investment advisers (“CA RIAs”) that manage pooled investment vehicles and are deemed to have custody of client assets are also subject to independent party surprise examinations. However, CA RIAs can avoid these additional requirements by engaging a PCAOB-registered auditor to prepare and distribute audited financial statements to all beneficial owners of the pooled investment vehicle, and the Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”). Those CA RIAs that do not engage an auditor must, among other things: (i) provide notice of such custody on the Form ADV; (ii) maintain client assets with a qualified custodian; (iii) engage an independent party to act in the best interest of investors to review fees, expenses, and withdrawals; and (iv) retain an independent certified public accountant to conduct surprise examinations of assets.

Other State RIAs. Advisers registered in other states  should consult their legal counsel about those states’ specific custody requirements.

California Minimum Net Worth Requirement and Financial Reports.

CA RIAs with Discretion. Every CA RIA (other than those also registered as broker-dealers) that has discretionary authority over client funds or securities, regardless of if they have custody, must maintain a net worth of at least $10,000 (CA RIAs with custody are subject to heightened minimum net worth requirements, discussed further below).

CA RIAs with Custody. Generally, every CA RIA (other than those also registered as broker-dealers) that has custody of client funds or securities must maintain a minimum net worth of $35,000. However, a CA RIA that: (i) is deemed to have custody solely because it acts as the general partner of a limited partnership, or a comparable position for another type of pooled investment vehicle; and (ii) otherwise complies with the California custody rule described above is exempt from the $35,000 minimum (and instead is required to maintain the $10,000 minimum).

Financial Reports. Every CA RIA subject to the above minimum net worth requirements must file certain reports with the DFPI. In addition to annual reports, CA RIAs may be required to file interim reports or reports of financial condition if they fall below certain net worth thresholds.

Annual Re-Certification of CFTC Exemptions. Commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisers (“CTAs”) currently relying on certain exemptions from registration with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) are required to re-certify their eligibility within 60 days of the calendar year-end. A common example includes the 4.13(a)(3) exemption also known as the “de minimis” exemption. CPOs and CTAs currently relying on relevant exemptions should consult with legal counsel to evaluate whether they remain eligible to rely on such exemptions.

CPO and CTA Annual Updates. Registered CPOs and CTAs must prepare and file Annual Questionnaires and Annual Registration Updates with the National Futures Association (“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 on Form CPO-PQR, while CTAs must file their fourth-quarter report on Form CTA-PR. 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 redistributed to pool participants.

Trade Errors. Managers should ensure that all trade errors are properly addressed pursuant to the manager’s trade errors policies 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 or other clients, 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.

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 13D or 13G. Passive investors are generally eligible to file the short-form Schedule 13G, which is updated annually within 45 days of the end of the year. Schedule 13D is required when a manager is ineligible to file Schedule 13G and is due 10 days after acquiring more than 5% beneficial ownership of a registered voting equity security. For managers who are also making Section 16 filings, this is an opportune time to review your filings to confirm compliance and anticipate needs for the first quarter.

Section 16 filings are required for “corporate insiders” (including beneficial owners of 10% or more of a registered voting equity security). An initial Form 3 is due within 10 days after becoming an “insider”; Form 4 reports ownership changes and is due by the end of the second business day after an ownership change; and Form 5 reports any transactions that should have been reported earlier on a Form 4 or were eligible for deferred reporting and is due within 45 days after the end of each fiscal year.

Form 13F. A manager must file a Form 13F if it exercises investment discretion with respect to $100 million or more in certain “Section 13F 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 one of the SEC’s large trader thresholds (generally, 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 a 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.

Form PF. Managers to private funds that are either registered with the SEC or required to be registered with the SEC and who have at least $150 million in regulatory assets under management (“RAUM”) must file a Form PF. Private advisers with less than $1.5 billion in RAUM must file Form PF annually within 120 days of their fiscal year-end. Private advisers with $1.5 billion or more in RAUM must file Form PF within 60 days of the end of each fiscal quarter.

Form MA. Investment advisers that provide advice on municipal financial products are considered “municipal advisors” by the SEC and must file a Form MA annually, within 90 days of their fiscal year-end.

SEC Form D. Form D filings for most funds need to be amended annually, on or before the anniversary of the most recently filed Form D. Copies of Form D are publicly available on the SEC’s EDGAR 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 initial and renewal filing requirements. Several states impose late fees or reject late filings altogether. Accordingly, it is critical to stay on top of filing deadlines for both new investors and renewals. We also recommend that managers review blue sky filing submission requirements. Many states now permit blue sky filings to be filed electronically through the Electronic Filing Depository (“EFD”) system, and certain states will now only accept filings through EFD.

IARD Annual Fees. Preliminary annual renewal fees for state-registered and SEC-registered investment advisers are due on December 13, 2022. Failure to submit electronic payments by the deadline may result in registrations terminating due to a “failure to renew.” If you have not already done so, you should submit full payment into your Renewal Account by E-Bill, check, or wire as soon as possible. 

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 certain political contributions. State and local governments have similar rules, 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. Note that managers offering or selling investment advisory services to local government entities must register as lobbyists in the applicable cities and counties. State laws on lobbyist registration differ significantly, so managers should carefully review reporting requirements in the states in which they operate to make sure they comply with the relevant rules.

****

Annual Fund Matters

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 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) Rules 5130 and 5131. Most managers reconfirm investor eligibility via negative consent (i.e., investors are informed of their status on file with the manager and are asked to notify the manager of any changes), whereby a failure to respond by any investor operates as consent to its current status.
 
ERISA Status. Given the significant problems that can occur from not properly tracking ERISA investors in private funds, we recommend that managers 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, with respect to each class of interests in a pooled investment vehicle.
 
Wash Sales. Managers should carefully manage wash sales for year-end. Failure to do so could result in 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 unwinding positions 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 fund constituent documents and the managed account agreement.
 
NAV Triggers and Waivers. Managers should promptly seek waivers of any applicable termination events specified in a fund’s International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“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 2022 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.
 
Electronic Schedule K-1s. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) authorizes 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 investors’ affirmative consent. States may have different rules regarding electronic K-1s, and partnerships should check with their counsel whether they may be required to send hard copy state K-1s. 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 to your investors electronically, you should discuss your options with your service providers.
 
“Bad Actor” Recertification Requirement. A security offering cannot rely on the Rule 506 safe harbor from SEC registration if the issuer or its “covered persons” are “bad actors.” Fund managers must determine whether they are subject to the bad actor disqualification any time they are offering or selling securities in reliance on Rule 506. The SEC has advised that an issuer may reasonably rely on a covered person’s agreement to provide notice of a potential or actual bad actor triggering event pursuant to contractual covenants, bylaw requirements, or undertakings in a questionnaire or certification. However, if an offering is continuous, delayed or long-lived, issuers must periodically update their factual inquiry through a bring-down of representations, questionnaires, and certifications, negative consent letters, reexamination of public databases or other means, depending on the circumstances. Fund managers should consult with counsel to determine how frequently such an update is required. As a matter of practice, most fund managers should perform these updates at least annually.
 
U.S. FATCA. Funds should monitor their compliance with the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”). Generally, U.S. FATCA reports are due to the IRS on March 31, 2023, or September 30, 2023, depending on where the fund is domiciled. However, reports may be required by an earlier date for jurisdictions that are parties to intergovernmental agreements (“IGAs”) with the U.S. Additionally, the U.S. may require that reports be submitted through the appropriate local tax authority in the applicable IGA jurisdiction, rather than the IRS. Given the varying U.S. FATCA requirements applicable to different jurisdictions, managers should review and confirm the specific U.S. FATCA reporting requirements that may apply. As a reminder, we strongly encourage managers to file the required reports and notifications, even if they already missed previous deadlines. Applicable jurisdictions may be increasing enforcement and monitoring of FATCA reporting and imposing penalties for each day late.
 
CRS. Funds should also monitor their compliance with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”). All “Financial Institutions” in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) and the Cayman Islands must register with the respective jurisdiction’s Tax Information Authority and submit various reports with the applicable regulator via the associated online portal. Managers to funds domiciled in other jurisdictions should also confirm whether any CRS reporting will be required in such jurisdictions and the procedures required to enroll and file annual reports. We recommend managers contact their tax advisors to stay on top of the U.S. FATCA and CRS requirements and avoid potential penalties.

****

Annual Management Company Matters

Management Company Expenses. Managers who distribute profits annually 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 vital to reduce the risk of 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 never 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. Because 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. Partnership agreements and operating agreements should be appropriately updated to reflect any such changes.

Insurance. If a manager carries director and officer or other liability insurance, the policy should be reviewed annually to ensure that the manager has provided notice to the carrier of all claims and all potential claims. Newly launched funds should also be added to the policy as necessary.

Other Tax Considerations. Fund managers should assess their overall tax position and consider several steps to optimize tax liability. Managers should also be aware of self-employment taxes, which can potentially be minimized by structuring the investment manager as a limited partnership. Several steps are available to optimize tax liability, including: (i) changing the incentive fee to an incentive allocation; (ii) use of stock-settled stock appreciation rights; (iii) if appropriate, terminating swaps and realizing net losses; (iv) making a Section 481(a) election under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Code”); (v) making a Section 475 election under the Code; and (vi) making charitable contributions. Managers should consult legal and tax professionals to evaluate whether any of these options are appropriate.

****

Notable Regulatory & Other Items from 2022

SEC Matters

SEC Risk Alert on Material Non-Public Information Compliance Issues. In April, the SEC released a risk alert summarizing the most common compliance deficiencies of both registered and unregistered investment advisers. Of note were (1) the lack of written policies to prevent the misuse of material non-public information (“MNPI”) and (2) the lack of compliance with the reporting requirements for “Access Persons” under the Code of Ethics Rule. All advisers should periodically revisit their written policies and procedures for the use of MNPI and registered investment advisers should review their Code of Ethics and establish reporting requirements for their Access Persons.

Enforcement Action for Misrepresenting Fees. The SEC instituted an enforcement action against a venture capital fund adviser and its CEO for misrepresenting their management fees as “industry standard 2 and 20” when they collected 10 years of management fees up front. This was misleading because it led investors to believe they would be charged an annual 2% management fee, rather than 20% of their total investment up front. The SEC also found that the adviser breached operating agreements by making inter-fund loans and cash transfers between funds. The adviser and its CEO agreed to a cease-and-desist order, returned funds, and paid penalties. In addition to confirming that the fund administrator reviews the offering documents and follows the mechanics for charging fees described therein, we recommend advisers closely review marketing materials with legal counsel or compliance consultants for any misleading or subjective statements.

Insider Trading in the Digital Asset Space. In 2022, the SEC charged a former Coinbase employee and two others with insider trading and a high-ranking employee of OpenSea was indicted for wire fraud and money laundering. The actions indicate the willingness of federal and state officials to enforce regulations applicable to traditional finance in the digital assets space and that law enforcement is ready to tackle unsavory business practices and to attempt to provide greater consumer protections. While insider trading remains an unsettled area of law in the digital asset space, concepts of fraud are well established, malleable, and largely immune from claims that certain digital assets are not “securities.”

Adviser Liable for Late Audit Distribution. The SEC charged an RIA with Custody Rule and compliance violations for failing to complete an audit within 120 days of the private fund’s fiscal year end. The SEC found that the adviser failed to have required audits performed and failed to deliver audited financial statements to investors in certain funds from 2014 onward, and in certain other funds from 2018 onward. The adviser consented to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, a monetary penalty, and to provide a notice of the Order to past and current investors in the fund. This enforcement action serves as a reminder to all advisers to remain vigilant and stay on top of their auditors to complete and distribute the annual fund audit in a timely fashion.

SEC Doubles Size of Crypto Enforcement Unit. The SEC announced the allocation of 20 additional positions to a Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (formerly the Cyber Unit) to protect investors in crypto markets from cyber-related threats. The expanded Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit will focus on investigating securities law violations related to crypto asset offerings, crypto asset exchanges, crypto asset lending and staking, decentralized finance, NFTs, and stable coins.  We think this is a step in the right direction; it is clear the SEC recognizes that the digital asset space is growing and that greater resources need to be brought to bear on the industry. 

New Marketing Rule for SEC Registered Investment Advisers. By November 4, 2022, all SEC RIA are required to be in full compliance with the SEC’s new marketing rules. As discussed in our 2021 Half Year Update, the new rule replaces the existing cash solicitation and advertising rules, with the most notable change being the allowance of testimonials and endorsements in a RIA’s marketing materials. Given the new rule’s detailed amendments and its significance to our investment adviser clients, we will soon publish a “Frequently Asked Questions” article addressing the specific changes and what they mean for investment advisers going forward. Please keep an eye out for this post on the Hedge Fund Law Blog in the coming weeks.

SEC Charges Investment Advisers for Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements. In September, the SEC conducted a compliance sweep and charged nine investment advisers for various violations, including failing to deliver audited financial statements to investors in a timely manner, failing to promptly file required amendments to the adviser’s Form ADV upon receipt of audited financial statements, failing to properly describe the status of financial statement audits in the Form ADV, and other violations of Rule 206(4)-2 (the “Custody Rule”) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). Without admitting fault, all the advisers settled with the SEC and agreed to censure and penalties totaling over $1 million. These enforcement actions highlight the importance of compliance with the Custody Rule and its associated reporting requirements, as well as serve as a reminder to regularly review the Form ADV for accuracy and file timely updates as needed. Further, as specifically identified by the SEC in many of these enforcement actions, if you select “Report Not Yet Received” in Item 23(h) of Section 7.B(1) of the Form ADV regarding a private fund’s audited financial statements, the Custody Rule and related instructions to the Form ADV mandate the filing of an other than annual amendment to the Form ADV once the audited financial statements are available. 

SEC Charges Venture Capital Adviser for Overcharging Fees. In September, the SEC charged a California-based ERA for overcharging management fees. The excess fees were a result of errors made by the manager, specifically with regard to (i) the failure to adjust its management fee calculations for securities subject to dispositions; (ii) calculations of the management fee based on aggregated invested capital at the portfolio company level instead of at the individual portfolio company level; (iii) including accrued but unpaid interest in its calculation of management fees; and (iv) calculating the funds’ post-investment period management fees on an incorrect date. As a result, the manager was ordered to return the excess management fees to fund investors and pay a penalty. This enforcement action underscores that while ERAs are subject to less regulatory oversight compared to RIAs, they are not exempt from SEC scrutiny. We recommend that all investment advisers routinely review their offering documents to ensure compliance with their fund offering terms.

SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. Rule 206(4)-5 of the Advisers Act bars investment advisers (except state registered investment advisers) from receiving compensation for advisory services provided to a government entity for two years after the adviser or its covered associates have made political contributions to that government entity or official. In September, the SEC investigated and settled four enforcement actions against investment advisers for violations of these pay-to-play rules as a result of political contributions of less than $1,000 by personnel of the investment advisers. The lack of allegations of an intent to exert influence highlights the strict liability enforcement mentality of the SEC with respect to pay-to-play rules as well as the importance of educating employees about political donations and implementing a robust internal compliance and reporting system.

CFTC Matters

Perpetual Futures and CFTC Regulation. Digital assets managers continue to inquire into the possibility of trading cryptocurrency futures contracts. With the CFTC recognizing certain digital assets as commodities, proper registration with the CFTC is required (or an appropriate exemption from registration must be utilized) if managers plan to trade cryptocurrency futures on registered exchanges. Under the Commodity Exchange Act, many, if not all, derivatives based on digital assets must be traded on a Designated Contract Market (“DCM”). However, many managers prefer not to trade on DCMs due to the lack of volume and liquidity and instead seek to trade on offshore exchanges that offer higher volume and reduced margin requirements. We caution U.S. managers who are trading on such exchanges – there may be risks to engaging with such counterparties in foreign jurisdictions and such U.S. managers often are unable to make the representations required in the account opening paperwork or terms of service (e.g., that the trading activity will not occur in the U.S.). To our knowledge, the CFTC has yet to take any formal action against managers trading on such offshore exchanges; however, we believe it is only a matter of time. Managers should carefully diligence any offshore exchanges they may use and disclose any applicable risks to investors.

CFTC & SEC Consider Asking Large Hedge Funds to Disclose Crypto Exposure. In September, the CFTC and the SEC submitted a joint proposal to amend Form PF—a confidential reporting form for certain investment advisers to private funds that are registered with the SEC and/or the CFTC. The proposal observes that investments in digital assets are continuing to grow, and ultimately suggests there is a parallel need to gather information on the exposure of crypto funds. The proposal suggests a new asset class be created for digital assets, which would be reported by firms or funds separately, revealing their exposure to the crypto industry. Both agencies solicited comments through October 11, 2022 and the comments submitted prior to the deadline are available to the public. This proposal is one of many actions underway by U.S. government agencies to better understand and regulate crypto as an asset class. To the extent this proposal is part of a larger regulatory scheme that provides clarity as to how and to what extent digital assets will be regulated, we think this has the potential to increase investments in the crypto industry.

Digital Asset Matters

Coinbase’s Bankruptcy Disclosure. The industry was caught off guard when Coinbase filed its latest 10-Q filing in which it stated “custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy estate.” In essence, in the event of Coinbase’s bankruptcy, its customers’ crypto assets may not be returned, and such clients could be treated as general unsecured creditors, meaning they would not have a claim to specific crypto assets held with Coinbase and could only recover the value of their crypto assets to the extent the bankruptcy estate has assets remaining after more senior claims are satisfied. While the Coinbase founder and CEO subsequently tweeted that Coinbase’s statement was a response to SEC disclosure requirements and that “customers have strong legal protections…in a black swan event like this,” the bankruptcy risks that Coinbase disclosed remain a possibility, however remote. In addition, other crypto exchanges, as well as third party wallet providers and custodians, may be subject to similar bankruptcy risks even though they may not have an obligation to disclose such risks publicly like Coinbase. In light of Coinbase’s disclosures, managers who do not exclusively rely on self-custody or cold wallets should review their custody practices, policies, and procedures, as well as agreements with their service providers, to ensure they have taken all available steps to safeguard investor assets. Managers should also consider making additional risk disclosures in their fund offering documents or other investor communications to educate their investors on these potential bankruptcy risks.

Liability Issues for Investing in a DAO. Due to the emerging nature of, and the scarce legislation surrounding, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (“DAOs”), operating, participating in, or investing in DAOs carries a heightened risk of liability as DAOs formed for the purpose of making a profit could be deemed general partnerships and therefore expose their participants to unlimited joint and several personal liability for the debts and obligations of such DAO. One recommendation to minimize exposure is to wrap the DAO in a liability blocker. As legislation related to, and use cases of, DAOs evolve and iterate, the need or effectiveness of liability blockers may change. Until then, managers should disclose this heightened risk to their investors and should consider only participating or investing in DAOs that are wrapped in a liability blocking entity such as a limited liability company.

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Crypto Regulatory Framework Bill. In June, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced bipartisan legislation to regulate the cryptocurrency market. The Responsible Financial Innovation Act aims to create a clear standard for determining whether certain digital assets are commodities or securities. The bill would give the CFTC authority over digital asset spot markets, allowing the agency to regulate digital assets in the same way as more traditional commodities. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee for examination and is pending approval of the Senate and the House of Representative.

OFAC/Tornado Cash. In August, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) added Tornado Cash, a smart contract mixer that anonymizes Ethereum-based crypto exchanges, to the Specially Designated National (“SDN”) list for the alleged use of its services in laundering over $7 billion of digital assets. By taking this position, OFAC has essentially declared that anonymous exchanges are likely SDNs, effectively denying these exchanges access to the U.S. financial system by making it illegal for any U.S. person to transact using those exchanges – even if the U.S. person does not initiate or authorize the transaction via the SDN.  This is particularly concerning because users may lose real-world access to their cryptocurrency, likely without any recourse and even when they have not actively engaged with an SDN.

SEC Actions Against Sponsors of Unregistered Crypto Offerings. Since October, the SEC ramped up its investigation and enforcement of securities violations in the crypto asset space. Notably, the SEC brought an enforcement action against Kim Kardashian for promoting a crypto asset via social media without disclosing that she was being compensated by the entity offering the security. Several other groups were charged for allegedly raising millions of dollars for tokens and other crypto assets without adequate registration and from unsophisticated investors. The recent expansion of the SEC’s enforcement unit coupled with the wave of enforcement actions in the digital asset space indicates a shift in focus to digital assets.

Other Items

In-Kind Crypto Contributions / Redemptions. We are starting to see greater difficulty for managers of offshore funds to utilize in-kind crypto contributions and redemptions because of administrator and Anti Money Laundering (“AML”) officers’ unease. We expect this trend to generally continue until administrators and AML officers become more comfortable with verifying and authenticating in-kind crypto transactions, either with additional regulatory guidance or with innovative processes.

Investors with Connections to Russia. It may be simply anecdotal, but we are seeing more administrator inquiries regarding investors with ties to Russia who are flagged for potential sanctions issues. In these instances, we encourage clients to work with legal counsel and their administrator to analyze their specific facts and circumstances and determine an appropriate course of action.

NFTs. Although far removed from its headline status of 2021, the NFT ecosystem continues to evolve, and many groups are developing products for the sector that more closely mirror the traditional asset space. We anticipate continued growth in this area and the development of business, legal and regulatory norms.

New EU AML Regulator Will Oversee Crypto. In June, the European Union (the “EU”) proposed the establishment of a new Anti-Money Laundering Authority to strengthen the EU’s AML and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (“CTF”) framework. If enacted, this proposal would create a new regulatory body and standardize AML/CTF regulations across the EU and replace the current AML regime which varies across individual nations. The new AML/CTF Authority would have supervisory powers including over selected obliged entities of the financial sector such as crypto-asset service providers and would also be responsible for the monitoring, analysis, and exchange of information concerning money laundering and terrorist financing. With the increasing anonymity provided by cryptocurrency, including through mixers such as Tornado Cash discussed above, the EU’s standardization of a comprehensive AML/CTF regime provides legitimacy to this asset class.

BVI Business Companies Act of 2004. On January 1, 2023, several amendments to the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) Business Company Act of 2004 relating to voluntary liquidators of solvent BVI business companies will go into effect. Specifically, the amendment requires a voluntary liquidator to be a resident of the BVI (unless a joint voluntary liquidator is a BVI resident) that has at least 2 years of liquidation experience, is competent to perform the liquidation, and is familiar with relevant legislation. Further, voluntary liquidators will now be required to maintain the entity’s accounting records and to provide them to the entity’s registered agent

****

Compliance Calendar

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

December 12, 2022

  • Annual Renewal Payments Due for Preliminary Statement Issued in E-bill for Registration/Notice Filings. Payment can be made through FINRA Firm Gateway in the E-bill tab.

December 16, 2022

  • Cayman Islands FATCA and CRS reporting deadlines.

December 22, 2022

  • Last day to submit form filings via IARD prior to year-end. CRD/IARD will be unavailable to submit any filings from 11 PM ET, December 22, 2022 through January 2, 2023, due to year-end renewal processing.

December 31, 2022   

  • Review RAUM to determine 2022 Form PF filing requirement.
  • Registered CPOs must submit a pool quarterly report (CPO-PQR).
  • Cayman funds regulated by CIMA that intend to de-register (i.e. wind down or continue as an exempted fund) should do so before this date to avoid 2022 CIMA fees.

January 10, 2023

  • Form 13H Quarterly Filing for Changes. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended December 31, 2022 and should be submitted within 10 days of quarter end.

January 15, 2023

  • Quarterly Form PF due for Large Liquidity Fund Advisers (if applicable).

January 31, 2023

  • “Annex IV” AIFMD filing.

February 14, 2023

  • Form 13F Quarterly Filing for Changes. Filing is for Calendar Quarter that ended December 31, 2022 and should generally be submitted within 45 days of quarter end.
  • Form 13H Annual Filing for Calendar Year that ended December 31, 2022.
  • Form 13G Annual Filing for Calendar Year that ended December 31, 2022.

March 1, 2023

  • Quarterly Form PF due for larger hedge fund advisers (if applicable).
  • Deadline for annual affirmation of NFA/CFTC exemptions. Exemptions must be affirmed within 60 days of Calendar Year end or exemptions will be withdrawn by the NFA.

March 31, 2023

  • Form ADV Annual Update Amendment. Deadline to update and file Form ADV Parts 1, 2A, 2B (and Form CRS, if applicable).

March 31, 2023

  • Cayman Islands CRS Compliance Form deadline.

Periodic

  • Fund Managers should perform “Bad Actor” certifications annually.
  • Form D and Blue Sky Filings should be current.
  • CPO/CTA Annual Questionnaires must be submitted annually, and promptly upon material information changes, through NFA Annual Questionnaire system.

Consult our complete Compliance Calendar for all 2023 critical dates as you plan your regulatory compliance timeline for the year. 

Please contact us with any questions or assistance regarding compliance, registration, or planning issues on any of the above topics.

Sincerely,

Karl Cole-Frieman, Bart Mallon, David Rothschild, Scott Kitchens, Tony Wise, Alex Yastremski, & Garret Filler

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is an investment management law firm known for providing innovative and collaborative legal solutions to clients with complex financial needs in both the traditional and digital asset spaces. Headquartered in San Francisco, CFM services a wide variety of groups, from start-up investment managers to multi-billion-dollar firms. The firm provides a full suite of legal services including: formation of hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds; adviser compliance and registration; counterparty documentation; equity financings and token offerings; 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 add us on LinkedIn and visit us at colefrieman.com.

Crypto Fund Offering Documents Post FTX Collapse

Items to Consider for Fund Terms / Structures

We are moving into the next phase of operations after the FTX collapse – for those crypto funds that did not face issues with assets on FTX (and even for those who did and who are remaining in business), we are now examining how this disruption changes the way managers operate their business and/or how do investors look at crypto fund terms and operational structures. 

As managers deal with questions from investors, or how they will proceed with their operations post-FTX bankruptcy, they may want to be thinking about the following items:

  1. Side Pockets – some managers may have seen their investment in FTX turn from individual crypto assets into a single asset (a bankruptcy claim) that has much different liquidity parameters.  The single asset bankruptcy claim may need to be sidepocketed and if so managers should review their fund documentation to see how that works and also discuss the mechanics with their fund administrator.  Of course, when sidepocketing any asset, managers should be careful with accounting and valuation. There are a number of other issues applicable to side pockets that managers may want to think about, including maximum percentage allocable to side pockets and when assets can be so designated.
  2. Lock-ups – in general liquid crypto funds have been able to institute longer initial and ongoing lock-up periods than traditional managers.  How these periods interact with the withdrawal provisions will determine required liquidity for any withdrawal periods. 
  3. Suspension of withdrawals – most offering documents (both in the traditional and digital asset spaces) have pretty standard suspension of withdrawals discussions.  Normally to suspend withdrawals there needs to be a major disruption in the industry.  My normal talking point is that it would be a 9-11 type event.  Here, for managers who had assets on FTX, this may be a suspension type event depending on the various circumstances of the particular fund (including total liquidity and normal withdrawal provisions, which may include a gate provision).  Managers may want to take another look at this language given the recent market events.
  4. Custody – this is always one of the most important disclosures for managers.  Custody in the digital assets space, while much improved from 2017-2018, is still all over the place.  Some managers will self-custody as much assets as possible while keeping certain assets with actual qualified custodians, and some managers will keep some or most assets on-exchange.  Whatever the technical expertise the manager has, and the mix of cold/hot storages and off/on-exchange, should be reviewed to make sure that a manager’s current practice mirrors the disclosure in the offering documents.
  5. Conflicts of interests (COI) – COI is always a vitally important section in any offering documents and managers should always try to over-disclose here.  For most groups with streamlined structures (GP-Fund entities only), there are standard COIs.  For groups with multiple management level entities and different agreements between them, or for groups with multiple fund structures and outside entities (like staking, mining, other service businesses) there will need to be more robust disclosure of the activities.
  6. Discussion of investment program – the purpose of the investment program disclosure is to provide investors with some kind of an overview of how the assets will be invested.  Some managers have multiple pages of disclosures and some will have a couple of paragraphs.  Some will include a discussion of everything they could potentially do and percentages etc, and some will be purposefully vague (and then augment the discussion with more detail in a pitchbook or other marketing materials).  Managers sould review the program and make sure it accurately describes their current state of affairs as well as how the program may change in the future.
  7. Risk factors – perhaps the most important part of the documents for a crypto fund manager is the risk factor section. There are some limitations in what ultimately is disclosed because at any particular time because the industry is constantly evolving, and quickly.  For managers in the traditional investment management space, most risks for any particular investment strategy has been developed over a long period of time.  In the digital asset space, risk factors are constantly being added and also modified over time.  For our manager clients, the risks related to exchanges and counterparties, both domestic and offshore, were robust and accurately depicted the issues that the FTX bankruptcy brought to the forefront.  Many times we work hand in hand with managers to understand the risks of a particular part of the industry and we develop them together.  Our specific risk factors have been informed by our interactions with regulators.  

For each of the sections above, there are many different ways for managers to think about the issues presented. We believe that it is important to discuss and think about these items on the front end, and we also believe that investors will be giving greater weight to these items in the future (especially with respect to side pockets and liquidity) so crypto fund managers should give these items extra thought during the fund formation process. While the above items were written with the crypto space in mind, the concepts apply equally to those groups in the traditional investment management space.

****

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 cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Crypto Funds Selling FTX Bankruptcy Claims

Contracting for the Sale of a FTX Bankruptcy Claim

There are a number of digital asset focused funds that have their assets on FTX frozen pending the bankruptcy process.  These managers now have a claim against FTX and it is unclear when such claims will ultimately be settled and for how much.  For a variety of reasons then many of these groups are looking to sell their claims and move on with their operations (either to continue their investment program or to close down). 

In the event a crypto manager does decide to sell a claim, we believe the sale should be memorialized in a contact of some kind, as would be normal operating procedure. However there are not really any standardized contracts for these types of claims.  What we are seeing though is that parties are modifying existing OTC trade document to fit the particulars of this situation.  In these documents we are seeing the following as the main sections:

  1. Discussion of the parties – this is pretty clear here, but the main selling party is the fund that holds the claim.  That fund may be a standalone or may be the master fund in a master-feeder structure.
  2. Discussion of the claim – the claim will normally be identified by the name of the selling party, but there may be additional information included as well including account numbers, account activity, outstanding amount, etc.
  3. Price – obviously this is the most important part for the selling party.  We are seeing/hearing anywhere from 3 cents to 8 cents on the dollar depending on a number of factors.  Managers should speak to at least two counterparties to see what the prevailing price and other terms are for these claims. 
  4. Buyer due diligence – the contract may have a discussion about continued buyer due diligence on the claim. [Note: this seems a bit odd and kind of turns the “contract” into more of a kind of “binding term sheet”…]
  5. Reps and warranties – manager sellers should be careful of any contract here that requires reps and warranties on the managers behalf.  This is especially true if the manager will be shutting the fund down after the sale of the claim.  It is unclear how the process will play out and the manager does not want to be creating a headache for themselves in later years based on a rep made in haste while trying to sell the asset. We would recommend negotiating this section pretty aggressively. Notwithstanding the above, normal reps regarding AML/KYC, ability to contract, etc are likely to not pose any issues to manager sellers.
  6. Miscellaneous items – there are standard miscellaneous items in these contracts around jurisdiction, which is turning into an interesting issue in this bankruptcy case.

If the manager ultimately does decide to sell a bankruptcy claim, they should talk with their various service providers to make sure that all important items are addressed (legal, tax, accounting, audit). 

With respect to the auditor, the most important item is to make sure that title over the claim has fully passed to the third-party so the auditor can determine that the transfer of the asset/claim to the buyer is complete and therefore off the books of the fund. Please note again there may be jurisdictional issues (needing Bahamian counsel) or issues with respect to the bankruptcy process (which may require bankruptcy counsel). We expect that these sales will pick up as managers try to get these claims off of their books by the end of the year.

We are also recommending to clients that they draft some kind of compliance memo to file that discusses all aspects of the decision to sell and the factors around the ultimate sale price.

Please feel free to reach out if you have questions on this process and we will try to keep this post updated as we deal with more of these sales over time.

****

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 cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

CoinAlts Fund Symposium Recap

Remarks from Digital Asset Private Fund Conference

A couple of weeks ago on November 3rd our law firm sponsored and ran our digital asset fund conference called CoinAlts. While originally an open conference for all in the digital assets space, it has more recently turned into a client event centered around crypto fund managers.  The goal has always been the same though – to come together to discuss topical digital asset items and to figure out ways for our manager clients to operate their business better.  We were lucky that the conference happened just before the FTX debacle unfolded because the panels were engaged with the real day-to-day issues involved in running a crypto investment management business. 

Below I’ve published my opening remarks and my quick closing remarks.  For a list of the speakers and the panel topics, you can visit our CoinAlts website. 

****

OPENINING REMARKS

By Bart Mallon

Before we get into everything, I wanted to ask this question – why are we here today?  What are we hoping to accomplish?  

Welcome everyone to CoinAlts 2022.  This is the 5th full installment of the conference series which was started in 2017 dedicated solely to digital asset fund managers and put on by four founding sponsor firms – Cole-Frieman & Mallon, MG Stover, Cohen & Co, and Harneys.  My name is Bart Mallon and I’ll be saying a few items this morning and will be with you throughout the day. 

I often ask myself what am I trying to get out of a conference before I go – many times, it is just that I want to get away and see friends and have a few drinks.  But in general, when I am going to conferences I try to look at what panels will help me with information help me be better in my business or how will it help me look at the world in a different way.    

Over the last few crytpo conferences, I’ve felt there was not much new stuff or one good idea that I could carry through back to day to day life – the narratives that I’ve heard lately at these conferences are generally “well we’re in bear market and new good things are coming because that’s how the cycles work”…

So, I guess, if that’s where we are – that it’s a bear market and we have to wait until the next cycle until there is something interesting or important, then why are we here?  Before I tell you my thoughts on that, let’s take a quick look at where we have been and what has been accomplished over these last five years since coinalts started.  

Let’s start with just the sheer amount of different crypto strategies we’ve seen during this time:

  • Long bitcoin
  • Long bitcoin and other tokens
  • Token trading
  • Long/short tokens
  • High frequency trading
  • Exchange arbitrage 
  • Blended or Multi-Strat offerings
  • Crypto VC
  • Mining focused funds and operations
  • Yield farming
  • Offshore focused exchange trading
  • Staking (and the rise of staking specific service entities)
  • Ecosystem dedicated strategies
  • Lending and DeFi strategies
  • NFTs
  • Web3, and,
  • DAO focused strategies

We all know that each of these are unique strategies, some literally having not existed even a couple of years ago.   From these strategies the founding sponsors have collectively worked with our manager clients (many of you here today) to develop “the firsts” in an industry and I’ll list off a few of these:

  • The first to really force the definition of crypto tokens as securities – we started with the question of what are crypto assets?  I am not sure we know for sure still – we know that bitcoin is not a security (at least for now), but what about ETH and Ripple?  At some point we will gain clarity, but our law firm was adamant from the very beginning that many assets would “likely be deemed to be securities” and therefore are subject to many of the traditional investment management laws.
  • The first firm to specialize in the crypto audit – how do you even audit something that is not physical and may not have a traditional custodian?  There are so many questions here that the team at Cohen had to deal with from the theoretical of “what does it mean to have the ability to control an asset?” to the mundane – “how do we see this asset on a blockchain?”
  • The first to deal with issues around Net Asset Value:
    • Traditional investment managent space markets don’t trade 24/7
    • Concept of first/last business day of a month or quarter versus the last calendar day
    • We collective saw themovement from midnight ET to UTC (which I now understand means Universal Time Coordinated – I had to look that up, perhaps Matt can confirm)
    • The first full crypto NAV process (as opposed to NAV Lite)
    • The first daily NAV crypto hedge fund
  • The first questions around Hard Forks – how do you deal with these from an accounting and tax standpoint?  How do you deal with any legal issues.  Operational items?  What to be careful with?  Same thing with Airdrops.
  • In-Kind Crypto Subscriptions and Redemptions – same thing here – this is a completely different process from the tradfi space and we helped facilitate all aspects of these transactions, from legal to tax to operations. 
  • Custody – for a few years this was one of the bigger legal and compliance issues for our managers.  How do you deal with the various issues around self-custody given the lack of qualified custodians?  It’s been a pretty constant five years of dealing with this front and center issue and there are many knowledgeable people here.
  • SEC registration – similar to the custody issue, how would digital asset managers actually register with the SEC if they were trading digital assets.
  • SEC examination – perhaps even a bigger question than registration was examination.  We didn’t know how the SEC would react to our clients – we helped our clients with both of these and found out that they did ok.
  • Many people here were some of the first people to speak with regulators of all kinds – SEC, state securities regulators, the IRS – about digital assets.  Many people here have been and currently are involved with discussions with legislators for future tax and regulatory bills.
  • Finally, the firsts for really building the basis for the industry – obviously legal and audit and tax were huge in this space, but we literally had the folks at MG Stover building APIs into exchanges.  Helped correct/fix/create APIs for various exchanges and custodians.  Build pricing sources. Standardized OTC trade confirms. Standardized custody reporting.  None of the day-to-day nuts and bolts for reporting would happen without these items…and

They even found $5mm hack of a client through their reconciliation process and the client ended up recouping all the crypto.

All of these things are the firsts that were developed hand in hand between our clients and our firms through many hours of phone calls, collaborations, research, a lot of “I thinks” and “we’ll see” and “hopefullys”…some “I don’t knows”…these are the things you go through when you are building the infrastructure of an industry…

I’ve already mentioned the four founding sponsors, but this conference also could not be put on without our Partner level sponsors Cowen Digital, Figment, Standard Custody and Trust Company; and out Supporter level sponsor Aspect Advisors, IQEQ, Silvergate, Withum, Copper, and Nova.  We also had our Women in Crypto networking event yesterday which was sponsored by Aspect, Strix Leviatian (a crypto fund manager), and StoneX that had about 75 attendees.  CalAlts, HF Alert, Help for Children were also our partner sponsors and we appreciate all their help.

For the first time our conference auctioned off an NFT 1.07ETH to a private collector in the Bay Area…the proceeds from this transaction will be donated to Help for Children, along with a match from our law firm.  Anyone else who wants to match, please see Sharon Hamilton over there.  I will spend more time thanking Sharon later today, but she is the main person who put this conference on, along with Karen Thornton, so please thank her if you see her today. 

We have six panels that will cover topics ranging from legal to custody to raising assets.  We also have two special keynotes from Mark Yusko and Punk6529, a lunch, breaks and networking reception at the end.  There is no shortage of current topical items that will probably be discussed during these times today:

  • Is crypto simply a risk-on asset that will move in lockstep with tech?
  • When is the crypto spring?
  • How do we not yet have a bitcoin ETF?
  • How will the recent OFAC rulings affect business going forward?
  • What did Terra Luna tell us about systemic risks of the industry?
  • Will the SEC and CFTC begin to regulate through rulemaking or continue with regulation by enforcement?
  • What does the successful ETH merge mean, if anything?
  • How will midterm elections affect the crypto space, if at all? 
  • Will FTX continue buying everything in sight?
  • Apple, Twitter, Google, Starbucks, Reddit…each one of them have real and interesting crypto use cases…which of these are going to emerge as real things that will be integrated into our daily lives?
  • And… funds have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, there are billion dollar funds, and even multi-billion dollar crytpo and crypto VCs fund that have been raised over the last 12 months…what will they be doing with that capital?

So I go back to the original question – why are we here?

I submit we might not know the reason right now but I am hoping we all find ideas, or hints of ideas, during the panels today that will help us in our day to day business and in life going forward.  I also hope that something here will spark another first we can add to our list…

With that as perhaps one reason for us to be here, we’ll move into our first item of the day, our Keynote discussion with Mark Yusko, Managing Partner of Morgan Creek Digital, talking here with Matt Stover of founding sponsor MG Stover.

****

CLOSING REMARKS

Thanks to all of the speakers, panelists and moderators today – there were a number of distinct takeaways for me – from not calling NFTs NFTs (instead digital property rights), do not make misrepresentations in your offshore account paperwork, that exchanges and custody will continue to bifurcate, the importance of crypto fund service providers to work together, that defi platforms generally worked, that there is an opportunity with respect to asset prices right now because of the crypto winter, and operational due diligence for crypto funds is in a much different place than it was even a couple of years ago.

Thank you again to all of our sponsors who helped make this event possible and specific thank yous go out to Sharon Hamilton of Cole-Frieman & Mallon and Karen Thornton – I know these two spent an inordinate amount of time working to make sure this symposium would be a success and we obviously could not have done this without them.

At the beginning of the conference I had asked everyone why we were here today…I didn’t realize we would get such a forceful call to action from Punk 6529 but I think that he’s right – we have to look to ourselves to see what we have individually done to help this industry and we have to fight for it.  It is not guaranteed. 

And with that I’d like to invite you all to our cocktail reception.

****

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 cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon 2022 Q2 Update

July 21, 2022

Clients, Friends, Associates:

As we end the second quarter and enter the summer season, we would like to highlight some of the recent industry updates and occurrences we found to be interesting and impactful. While we try to keep these topics higher-level, please feel free to explore the links included and reach out to us if you have any related questions.

****

CFM Items

We are pleased to announce the addition of Alex Yastremski to our firm as Partner to lead our Digital Asset Practice. We’d also like to highlight the addition of Frank J. Martin as Counsel and the promotion of Tony Wise to Partner. Additionally, we have hired Joe Burgess as Executive Director to continue our focus on operational excellence. Please join us in welcoming them all to our firm!

Our annual CoinAlts Fund Symposium is returning to San Francisco and will be held on November 3, 2022. Please mark the date on your calendar and stay tuned for further registration information. Attendance will be complimentary for clients of our firm and those of the other CoinAlts founding firms, MG Stover, Cohen & Company, and Harneys.

****

SEC Matters

SEC Risk Alert on Material Non-Public Information Compliance Issues. The SEC recently released a risk alert summarizing the most common compliance deficiencies of both registered and unregistered investment advisers. Of note were (1) the lack of written policies to prevent the misuse of material non-public information (“MNPI”) and (2) the lack of compliance with the reporting requirements for “Access Persons” under the Code of Ethics Rule. All advisers should periodically revisit their written policies and procedures for the use of MNPI and registered investment advisers should review their Code of Ethics and establish reporting requirements for their Access Persons.

Enforcement Action for Misrepresenting Fees. The SEC instituted an enforcement action against a venture capital fund adviser and its CEO for misrepresenting their management fees as “industry standard 2 and 20” when they collected 10 years of management fees up front. This was misleading because it led investors to believe they would be charged an annual 2% management fee, rather than 20% of their total investment up front. The SEC also found that the adviser breached operating agreements by making inter-fund loans and cash transfers between funds. The adviser and its CEO agreed to a cease-and-desist order, returned funds, and paid penalties. In addition to confirming that the fund administrator reviews the offering documents and follows the mechanics for charging fees described therein, we recommend advisers closely review marketing materials with legal counsel or compliance consultants for any misleading or subjective statements.

OpenSea Insider Trading. A former high-ranking employee of OpenSea was recently indicted for wire fraud and money laundering in what the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York characterized as the “first-ever digital asset insider trading scheme.” The former head of Product at OpenSea was in charge of selecting NFTs to feature on the website’s homepage and allegedly misappropriated that confidential information by purchasing those NFTs before they were promoted on OpenSea’s homepage.

While the alleged actions in the indictment are reminiscent of traditional insider trading under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), since NFTs are not yet categorized as securities under the Exchange Act, the prosecutors here wove allegations of traditional fraud and insider trading concepts into charges for wire fraud and money laundering. The prosecutorial creativity signals that despite lagging legislation, law enforcement is taking notice of the increasing fraudulent activity in the NFT space and is ready to tackle such unsavory business practices and provide greater consumer protection. While insider trading remains an unsettled area of law in the digital asset space, concepts of fraud are well established, malleable, and largely immune from claims that certain digital assets are not “securities.”

Adviser Liable for Late Audit Distribution. The SEC charged a registered investment adviser with Custody Rule and compliance violations for failing to complete an audit within 120 days of the private fund’s fiscal year end. The SEC found that the adviser failed to have required audits performed and failed to deliver audited financial statements to investors in certain funds from 2014 onward, and in certain other funds from 2018 onward. The adviser consented to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, a monetary penalty, and to provide a notice of the Order to past and current investors in the fund. This enforcement action serves as a reminder to all advisers to remain vigilant and stay on top of their auditors to complete and distribute the annual fund audit in a timely fashion.

SEC Doubles Size of Crypto Enforcement Unit. The SEC announced the allocation of 20 additional positions to a Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (formerly the Cyber Unit) to protect investors in crypto markets from cyber-related threats. The expanded Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit will focus on investigating securities law violations related to crypto asset offerings, crypto asset exchanges, crypto asset lending and staking, decentralized finance, NFTs, and stablecoins. We think this is a step in the right direction; it is clear the SEC recognizes that the digital asset space is growing and that greater resources need to be brought to bear on the industry. 

****

CFTC Items

Perpetual Futures and CFTC Regulation. Digital assets managers continue to inquire into the possibility of trading cryptocurrency futures contracts. With the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) recognizing certain digital assets as commodities, proper registration with the CFTC is required (or an appropriate exemption from registration must be utilized) if managers plan to trade cryptocurrency futures on registered exchanges. Under the Commodity Exchange Act, many, if not all, derivatives based on digital assets must be traded on a Designated Contract Market (“DCM”). However, many managers prefer not to trade on DCMs due to the lack of volume and liquidity and instead seek to trade on offshore exchanges that offer higher volume and reduced margin requirements. We caution U.S. managers who are trading on such exchanges – there may be risks to engaging with such counterparties in foreign jurisdictions and such U.S. managers often are unable to make the representations required in the account opening paperwork or terms of service (e.g., that the trading activity will not occur in the U.S.). To our knowledge, the CFTC has yet to take any action against managers trading on such offshore exchanges; however, we believe it is only a matter of time. Managers should carefully diligence any offshore exchanges they may use and disclose any applicable risks to investors.

****

Digital Asset Items

Coinbase’s Bankruptcy Disclosure. The industry was caught off guard when Coinbase filed its latest 10-Q filing in which it stated “custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy estate.” In essence, in the event of Coinbase’s bankruptcy, its customers’ crypto assets may not be returned, and such clients could be treated as general unsecured creditors, meaning they would not have a claim to specific crypto assets held with Coinbase and could only recover the value of their crypto assets to the extent the bankruptcy estate has assets remaining after more senior claims are satisfied. While the Coinbase founder and CEO subsequently tweeted that Coinbase’s statement was a response to SEC disclosure requirements and that “customers have strong legal protections…in a black swan event like this,” the bankruptcy risks that Coinbase disclosed remain a possibility, however remote. In addition, other crypto exchanges, as well as third party wallet providers and custodians, may be subject to similar bankruptcy risks even though they may not have an obligation to disclose such risks publicly like Coinbase. In light of Coinbase’s disclosures, managers who do not exclusively rely on self-custody or cold wallets should review their custody practices, policies, and procedures, as well as agreements with their service providers, to ensure they have taken all available steps to safeguard investor assets. Managers should also consider making additional risk disclosures in their fund offering documents or other investor communications to educate their investors on these potential bankruptcy risks.

Liability Issues for Investing in a DAO. Due to the emerging nature of, and the scarce legislation surrounding, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (“DAOs”), operating, participating in, or investing in DAOs carries a heightened risk of liability as DAOs formed for the purpose of making a profit could be deemed general partnerships and therefore expose their participants to unlimited joint and several personal liability for the debts and obligations of such DAO. One recommendation to minimize exposure is to wrap the DAO in a liability blocker. As legislation related to, and use cases of, DAOs evolve and iterate, the need or effectiveness of liability blockers may change. Until then, managers should disclose this heightened risk to their investors and should consider only participating or investing in DAOs that are wrapped in a liability blocking entity such as a limited liability company.

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Crypto Regulatory Framework Bill. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) recently introduced bipartisan legislation to regulate the cryptocurrency market. The Responsible Financial Innovation Act aims to create a clear standard for determining whether certain digital assets are commodities or securities. The bill would give the CFTC authority over digital asset spot markets, allowing the agency to regulate digital assets in the same way as more traditional commodities. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee for examination and is pending approval of the Senate and the House of Representative.

****

Other Items

In-Kind Crypto Contributions / Redemptions. We are starting to see greater difficulty for managers of offshore funds to utilize in-kind crypto contributions and redemptions because of administrator and Anti Money Laundering (“AML”) officers’ unease. We expect this trend to generally continue until administrators and AML officers become more comfortable with verifying and authenticating in-kind crypto transactions, either with additional regulatory guidance or with innovative processes.

Investors with Connections to Russia. It may be simply anecdotal, but we are seeing more administrator inquiries regarding investors with ties to Russia who are flagged for potential sanctions issues. In these instances, we encourage clients to work with legal counsel and their administrator to analyze their specific facts and circumstances and determine an appropriate course of action.

NFTs. Although far removed from its headline status of 2021, the NFT ecosystem continues to evolve, and many groups are developing products for the sector that more closely mirror the traditional asset space. We anticipate continued growth in this area and the development of business, legal and regulatory norms.

****

Compliance Calendar

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

July 10, 2022

  • Form 13H Quarterly Filing for Changes. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended June 30, 2022 and should be submitted within 10 days of quarter end.

July 15, 2022

  • Form PF for Large Liquidity Fund Advisers. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended June 30, 2022.

July 31, 2022

  • ERISA Schedule C of DOL Form 5500 Disclosure.

August 15, 2022

  • Form 13F Quarterly Filing. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended June 30, 2022 and should be submitted within 45 days of quarter end.
  • CTA Form PR. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended June 30, 2022 and should be submitted within 45 days of quarter end.

August 29, 2022

  • Form PF for Large Hedge Fund Advisers. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended June 30, 2022.
  • CPO-PQR Form. Filing is for calendar quarter that ended June 30, 2022 and should be submitted within 60 days of quarter end.

August 31, 2022

  • Deadline to submit Annual FINRA Entitlement Certification for 2022. If not completed, FINRA accounts will be withdrawn.

Consult our complete Compliance Calendar for all 2022 critical dates as you plan your regulatory compliance timeline for the year. 

Please contact us with any questions or assistance regarding compliance, registration, or planning issues on any of the above topics.

Sincerely,

Karl Cole-Frieman, Bart Mallon, David Rothschild, Scott Kitchens, Alex Yastremski, & Tony Wise

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is an investment management law firm known for providing innovative and collaborative legal solutions to clients with complex financial needs in both the traditional and digital asset spaces. Headquartered in San Francisco, CFM services a wide variety of groups, from start-up investment managers to multi-billion-dollar firms. The firm provides a full suite of legal services including: formation of hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds; adviser compliance and registration; counterparty documentation; equity financings and token offerings; 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 add us on LinkedIn and visit us at colefrieman.com.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon Announces Promotion of Tony Wise to Partner

San Francisco, Calif. – July 14, 2022: Investment management law firm Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP (“CFM”) is pleased to announce that Counsel Tony Wise has been promoted to Partner. Mr. Wise joined CFM in 2016 and advises asset managers in fund formation and regulatory matters. Mr. Wise specializes in funds that invest in cryptocurrency and the broader ecosystem, and more recently has focused on digital asset counterparty documentation. Mr. Wise helped Partner Scott Kitchens open CFM’s Denver office in 2019.

“We are proud to advance Tony to the role of Partner. He has undoubtedly earned it,” said Bart Mallon, Co-Managing Partner. “Tony has gained an exceptional standing within the investment industry due to his forward-thinking ability, our clients’ results, and his commitment to helping them achieve their financial business goals.”

“Since joining our firm, Tony has worked diligently on behalf of our clients’ investment interests within the digital asset space. His commitment to the success of our firm is a true value to our team and our clients,” said Co-Managing Partner Karl Cole-Frieman.

Mr. Wise added, “I truly enjoy providing guidance to our asset manager clients and am excited to continue expanding the firm’s digital asset-related legal services.”

About: Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is an investment management law firm known for providing innovative and collaborative legal solutions to clients with complex financial needs in both the traditional and digital asset spaces. Headquartered in San Francisco, CFM services a wide variety of groups, from start-up investment managers to multi-billion-dollar firms. The firm provides a full suite of legal services including: formation of hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds; adviser compliance and registration; counterparty documentation; equity financings and token offerings; 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 add us on LinkedIn and visit us at colefrieman.com.

Press Release