Tag Archives: hedge fund investment adviser

Hedge Fund Investment Adviser Insurance

E&O or D&O Insurance For Registered Investment Advisers

Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk with an insurance broker whose business focuses on providing insurance to registered investment advisers and hedge fund managers. This article is based on that conversation.

Insurance Premiums for Small Funds

For smaller funds (say less than $100 million in AUM) with no operational history, the minimum premium amount is likely to be in the $10,000 to $15,000 range for about $1 million in coverage. Usually premiums will stay around those levels as the AUM grows, but at around $200 million in AUM the premiums may start to increase. For those types of premiums you are usually looking at deductibles in the $25,000 range, which is going to be pretty standard for smaller groups. Depending on the exact nature of the group’s business the deductible may end up being as high as $50,000 or $75,000. Of course these are only ranges and the final premium and deductible amounts will be established based on the unique circumstance of the manager.

Hedge Fund Insurance Underwriters

While the insurance brokers are able to place policies for smaller managers at some of the major carriers like Chubb, many times they will need to have scripted policies which require the insurance carriers (groups like Lloyds) to write a policy specifically for the management company. In these cases the premiums are likely to be on the higher end of the ranges discussed above.

What does Insurance Cover?

The central reason that hedge fund investment advisers will buy insurance is to protect against potential claims by the limited partners. Generally the insurance can be purchased as Errors & Omissions/Directors & Officers Liability (E&O/D&O). While each policy will cover different acts, generally the insurance will cover the negligent acts of all past and present employees, offices and directors. Independent contractors (such as sub-advisers and potentially, in certain circumstances hedge fund service providers) may or may not be covered under the policy.

If a lawsuit is initiated against the manager, after the deductible the insurance company will pick up all costs associated with the lawsuit up to the coverage maximum (in the case quoted above, this would be $1 million). Because of the costly nature of litigation and because any litigation will likely be based on significant losses, it might be the case that the liability in the case exceeds the insurance coverage in which case the managers or employees may be liable for the remainder of the judgment or legal costs (see How Much E&O Should I Buy). Many hedge funds will have exculpation and indemnification provisions which will protect officers and employees of the management company for acts done in good faith.

****

Related articles from Hedge Fund Law Blog:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you have questions about your investment advisor compliance program, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Net Capital Requirement for State Registered Hedge Fund Managers

4 Replies

Overview of Net Capital Requirement and Bond Alternative

Hedge fund managers who need to register as investment advisors in their state of residence often have to deal with the net capital requirement issue. Usually there will be two separate net capital requirements for the investment advisor (meaning the fund’s management company) depending on the nature of the advisor’s business:

Advisors with Discretionary Authority – $10,000
Advisors with Custody – $35,000

[Note: these requirements do not usually apply to forex hedge fund managers unless such managers are also registered as investment advisors.]

Generally all state-registered hedge fund managers will have discretionary authority of the hedge fund’s investments so most advisors will need to maintain the $10,000 requirement. Also, most hedge fund managers will also be deemed to have “custody” of the fund assets because they will either have direct access to the hedge fund’s bank account or because they will directly deposit their management fees from the fund’s brokerage account. Accordingly, most state-registered hedge fund managers will need to maintain the more burdensome $35,000 net capital requirement. There is no requirement to combine the $10,000 with the $35,000 for managers with both discretionary authority and custody – in these situations the manager will only need to maintain the $35,000.

Investment Advisor Bond

As an alternative to maintaining a firm net capital according to the rules above, some states will allow hedge fund managers to post a bond in the required amount instead. Not all states will allow a manager to post a bond instead, so you should be sure to talk with your hedge fund attorney or compliance professional before you begin the process of securing a bond.

Securing the Bond

There are a number of groups out there that can underwrite these sorts of bonds for the money managers. The fees for such bonds will be anywhere from $250 to $1,000, depending on a number of factors including the credit history of the managing member of the fund management company. It will generally take anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks to secure the bond and from there, the manager will likely need to show proof to the state securities division that the bond has been secured in the appropriate amount.

****

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

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs Hedge Fund Law Blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP will also help state based Investment Advisors to register with their state securities division. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or an investment advisor looking to register, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Form U4 and Form U5 Amendments

2 Replies

NASAA Requests Comments on Proposed Changes

Form U4 is the form used by Investment Advisory firms to register investment advisor representatives with their firm. It is also used by broker-dealers to register reps with their firms. Form U5 is used by both IA and BD firms to terminate a representative’s employment with such firm. While I have not reviewed the changes to the forms in depth, the summary discussion (reprinted below) sounds reasonable. We may be submitting comments on these proposals in the future as we discuss with other industry participant – please let us know if you have strong thoughts one way or another on the proposed changes.

The press release and discussion are both reprinted below. For more information, please visit the NASAA site here. Please also review our recommended articles at the very bottom of this page.

****

Notice for Request for Comment on Amendments to Forms U4 and U5 and Proposed Guidance for Filings by Investment Adviser Representatives

The proposed changes have been published by both FINRA and the SEC for public comment. On May 13, 2009, the SEC approved the proposed changes. NASAA is now publishing the amended forms for further review and comment by its members and other interested parties in anticipation of adoption of the revised forms by the NASAA membership.

In addition, this notice includes suggested guidance for states in responding to inquiries regarding the impact of the revisions on filings by investment adviser representatives.

The comment period begins June 9, 2009, and will remain open for 14 days. Accordingly, all comments should be submitted on or before June 23, 2009.

****

NOTICE FOR REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION OR TRANSFER (FORM U4), THE UNIFORM TERMINATION NOTICE FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION (FORM U5), AND PROPOSED GUIDANCE FOR FILINGS BY INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES.

The NASAA CRD/IARD Steering Committee and the CRD/IARD Forms and Process Committee have worked with FINRA, regulators, and representatives of the financial services industry in developing amendments to the Form U4 and Form U5. The proposed changes have been published by both FINRA and the SEC for public comment. On May 13, 2009, the SEC approved the proposed changes. NASAA is now publishing the amended forms for further review and comment by its members and other interested parties in anticipation of adoption of the revised forms by the NASAA membership.

In addition, this memo includes suggested guidance for states in responding to inquiries regarding the impact of the revisions on filings by investment adviser representatives.

Questions or comments regarding the revised forms should be directed to the following individuals:
Melanie Lubin
Office of the Attorney General
Division of Securities
200 Saint Paul Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2020
(410) 576-6360
[email protected]

Pam Epting
Office of Financial Regulation
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0372
(850) 410-9819
[email protected]

Joseph Brady
NASAA
750 First Street, NE
Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20002
202-737-0900
[email protected]

The comment period begins June 9, 2009, and will remain open for fourteen (14) days. Accordingly, all comments should be submitted to the individuals noted above on or before June 23, 2009.

Summary of Proposed Changes to Registration Forms

The SEC recently approved amendments for Forms U4 and U5 (“the Forms”). These changes fall into the following categories.

Willful Violations. Additional questions have been added to Form U4 in order to enable regulators to identify more readily individuals and firms subject to a particular category of statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 15(b)(4)(D) of the Exchange Act.
Revision to Arbitration and Civil Litigation Question. Changes were made to the text of the question on the Form U4 regarding disclosure of arbitrations or civil litigation to elicit reporting of allegations of sales practice violations made against a registered person in arbitration or litigation in which that person was not named as a party to the arbitration or litigation.
Revision to Monetary Threshold. The monetary threshold for reporting settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or civil litigation on the Forms has been raised from $10,000 to $15,000.
Date and Reason for Termination. The definition of “Date of Termination” in the Form U5 has been revised in order to enable firms to amend the “Date of Termination” and the “Reason for Termination” subject to certain conditions.
Technical Amendments. Certain technical and clarifying changes were made to the Forms.

The SEC approved these amendments effective May 18, 2009, except the new disclosure questions regarding willful violations, which become effective 180 days later on November 14, 2009. Firms will be required to amend Form U4 to respond to the new disclosure questions the first time they file Form U4 amendments for registered persons after May 18, 2009, at which time they may provide provisional “no” answers. However, firms must provide final answers to the questions no later than November 14, 2009.

Revisions Regarding Willful Violations.

The amendments modify the Forms to enable regulators to query the CRD system to identify persons who are subject to disqualification as a result of a finding of a willful violation. Specifically, the amendments add additional questions to existing Questions 14C and 14E on Form U4. Question 14C, which inquires about SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulatory actions, adds three new questions regarding willful violations. Similarly, Question 14E, which concerns findings by a self-regulatory organization, adds three identical questions. The Form U4 Regulatory Action Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP) will continue to elicit specific information regarding the status of the events reported in response to these questions.

Adding new disclosure questions to Form U4 requires firms to amend such forms for all their registered persons. To ensure that firms have appropriate time to populate the forms accurately, the SEC delayed the effective date for the new regulatory action disclosure questions for 180 days until November 14, 2009. This schedule will provide firms with up to 180 days from the release date to answer the regulatory action disclosure questions. Additionally firms, at their discretion, can file provisional “no” answers to the six new regulatory action questions during the 180-day period between the release date and the effective date. During this time, the regulatory action disclosure questions will appear in the CRD system in a manner designed to indicate that such questions are not effective until 180 days from the release date and that any answers provided in response to such questions are provisional until such time as those questions become effective. Any “no” answers filed in response to the new regulatory action disclosure questions during such 180-day period that are not amended before November 14, 2009, will become final, and the firm and subject registered person will be deemed to have represented that the person has not been the subject of any finding addressed by the question(s). If a firm determines that a registered person must answer “yes” to any part of Form U4 Questions 14C or 14E, the amendment filings must include completed DRP(s) covering the proceedings or action reported.

With respect to Form U5, the amendments did not alter Question 7D (Regulatory Action Disclosure), but added new Question 12C to the Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP. As of May 18, 2009, firms that answer “yes” to Question 7D on Form U5 will be required to provide more detailed information about the regulatory action in Question 12C of the DRP. For regulatory actions in which the SEC, CFTC or an SRO is the regulator involved, Question 12C requires firms to answer questions eliciting whether the action involves a willful violation. These questions correspond to the questions added to the Form U4. A firm will not be required to amend Form U5 to answer Question 12C on the DRP and/or add information to a Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP that was filed previously unless it is updating a regulatory action that it reported as pending on the current DRP.

Revisions to the Arbitration and Civil Litigation Disclosure Question.

The Forms have been revised to require the reporting of allegations of sales practices violations made against registered persons in a civil lawsuit or arbitration in which the registered person is not a named party. Specifically, Question 14I on Form U4 and Question 7E on Form U5 were amended to require the reporting of alleged sales practice violations made by a customer against persons identified in the body of a civil litigation complaint or an arbitration claim, even when those persons are not named as parties. The new questions apply only to arbitration claims or civil litigation filed on or after May 18, 2009. A firm is required to report a “yes” answer only after it has made a good-faith determination after a reasonable investigation that the alleged sales practice violation(s) involved the registered person.

Revisions to the Monetary Threshold.

The current monetary threshold for settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or litigation was set in 1998 and has not been adjusted since that time. The changes to the Forms include raising the existing reporting threshold from $10,000 to $15,000 to reflect more accurately the business criteria (including the cost of litigation) firms consider when deciding to settle claims. This change is reflected in Question 14I on Form U4 and Question 7E on Form U5.

Revisions Regarding “Date of Termination” and “Reason for Termination.”

Revisions to Form U5 provide that the date to be provided by a firm in the “Date of Termination” field is the “date that the firm terminated the individual’s association with the firm in a capacity for which registration is required.” The amendments further clarify that, in the case of full terminations, the “Date of Termination” provided by the firm will continue to be used by regulators to determine whether an individual is required to requalify by examination or obtain an appropriate waiver upon reassociating with a firm. Revisions to Form U5 also clarify that the relevant SRO or jurisdiction determines the effective date of termination of registration. The rule change also permits a firm, as of May 18, 2009, to amend the “Date of Termination” and “Reason for Termination” fields in a Form U5 it previously submitted, but in such cases it requires the firm to provide a reason for each amendment. To monitor such amendments, including those reporting terminations for cause, FINRA will notify other regulators and the broker-dealer with which the registered person is currently associated (if the person is associated with another firm) when a date of termination or reason for termination has been amended. The original date of termination or reason for termination will remain in the CRD system in form filing history.

Technical Revisions.

The Forms were amended to make various clarifying, technical and conforming changes generally intended to clarify the information elicited by regulators and to facilitate reporting by firms and regulators. For example, the amendments eliminated as unnecessary certain cross-references in the Forms. Additionally, certain “free text” fields were converted to discrete fields. The amendments also add to Section 7 of Form U5 (Disclosure Questions) an optional “Disclosure Certification Checkbox” that will enable firms to affirmatively represent that all required disclosure for a terminated person has been reported and the record is current at the time of termination. Checking this box will allow the firm to bypass the process of re-reviewing a person’s entire disclosure history for purposes of filing Form U5 in situations in which disclosure is up to date at the time of the person’s termination. The amendments make additional technical changes to the Forms. For example, they incorporate the definition of “found” from the Form U4 Instructions into the Form U5 instructions; provide more detailed instructions regarding the reporting of an internal review (conducted by the firm); and clarify how an individual may file comments to an Internal Review DRP.

Guidance Regarding U4 Filings for Investment Adviser Representatives.

As explained above, the questions added to items 14C and 14E have been approved by the SEC but the effectiveness of the questions has been delayed until November 14, 2009. The questions currently appear on the form in a manner designed to indicate that they are not currently effective. Further, the answers to the questions currently default to “no” and will continue to do so until they become effective later this year unless a filer manually selects a “yes” answer. The delayed effective date coupled with the default “no” answer is a temporary accommodation in order to give filers an opportunity to determine the appropriate answers to the new questions.

The CRD/IARD Steering Committee has received inquiries regarding how investment adviser representatives should respond to these questions. It is the Steering Committee’s recommendation that state and territorial securities regulators handle the filings for investment adviser representatives in the same manner as broker-dealer agents who file on or after May 18, 2009. That is, investment adviser representatives should be allowed to file provisional responses to the questions contained in 14C and 14E on the Form U4 until such time as the questions become effective on November 14, 2009.

Forms.

Copies of the revisions as approved by the SEC are attached.

****

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

Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Drops Ball, Receives Fine

Leave a reply

In what represents an unbelievable screw-up, professed hedge fund due diligence firm Hennessee Group was charged by the SEC with not performing the due diligence it supposedly provided to hedge fund investors who used their services. According to the SEC Administrative Order, Henessee did not perform certain key elements of the due diligence process which they advertised to potential clients. Because of the lack of due diligence, Henessee recommended investing into the fraudulent Bayou hedge fund.

A few of the more interesting parts of the release include the following:

From February 2003 through August 2005, approximately forty clients of Hennessee Group invested a total of over $56 million in the Bayou funds after receiving Hennessee Group’s recommendations. Most of those monies were lost and dissipated by Bayou’s principals, who defrauded their investors by fabricating Bayou’s performance in client account statements, periodic newsletters, and year-end financial statements that included a phony audit opinion fabricated by one of Bayou’s principals.

****

Hennessee Group and Gradante, in their capacities as investment advisers, owed fiduciary duties to their clients to perform the services that they represented they would provide and to disclose all material departures from the representations that they made to their clients. Despite their representations about their services, with regard to the Bayou Funds and the funds’ management, Hennessee Group and Gradante did not perform two of the five elements of the due diligence evaluation that they had represented to their clients they would undertake. In addition, Hennessee Group and Gradante failed to adequately respond to information that they received that suggested that the identity of Bayou’s outside auditor was in doubt and that there existed a potential conflict of interest between one of Bayou’s principals and its purported outside auditor.

****

With regard to Bayou, Hennessee Group, at Gradante’s direction, failed to perform two elements of the due diligence evaluation that Hennessee Group had told its clients and prospective clients that it would do: (1) a portfolio/trading analysis; and (2) a verification of Bayou’s relationship with its purported independent auditor. By not conducting the entire due diligence evaluation that it had advertised, and by failing to disclose to clients that its evaluation of Bayou deviated from its prior representations, Hennessee Group and Gradante rendered the prior representations about the due diligence process materially misleading and breached their fiduciary duties to Hennessee Group’s clients.

****

In the fall of 2002, Bayou refused to provide Hennessee Group with the prime brokerage reports that Hennessee Group had requested. However, instead of insisting that Bayou provide the reports as a condition of potentially being recommended, Hennessee Group proceeded to the next phases of due diligence. Gradante decided that a portfolio/trading analysis was irrelevant for a day-trading fund like Bayou, which stated in marketing materials that it held securities positions for brief periods of time and converted positions to cash prior to each day’s market closing.

As a result, Hennessee Group did not obtain or evaluate any quantitative information about Bayou’s portfolio characteristics, investment and trading strategies, or risk management discipline. Instead of confirming Bayou’s results and processes through an analysis of Bayou’s historical trading data to determine whether the fund was, in fact, executing its purported “high-velocity” day-trading strategy and utilizing appropriate risk management techniques, Gradante and Hennessee Group relied entirely on Bayou’s uncorroborated representations and purported rates of return that Bayou had provided during its initial information-gathering phases.

Hennessee Group never told the clients to whom it recommended Bayou that it had not conducted a portfolio/trading analysis on the funds. By failing to disclose this information in connection with its recommendation of Bayou, Hennessee Group left those clients with the misleading impression that it had conducted a portfolio, trading, and risk management evaluation of Bayou and that Bayou had satisfied Hennessee Group’s purported standards. In so doing, Hennessee Group and Gradante breached their fiduciary duties to Hennessee Group’s clients.

I have written a number of posts about proper hedge fund due diligence and am always surprised how haphazardly investments are made into some hedge funds. Over the past six to eight months I have also been surprised that so many sophisticated and savvy investors would be duped by frauds like Madoff… but I guess if those gatekeepers who are paid to help investors research managers are asleep at the wheel we can’t really expect much more from investors.

Please contact us if you have a question on this issue or if you would like to start a hedge fund. If you would like more information, please see our articles on starting a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

****

SEC Charges Investment Adviser That Recommended Bayou Hedge Funds to Clients

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-86

Washington, D.C., April 22, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged New York-based investment adviser Hennessee Group LLC and its principal Charles J. Gradante with securities law violations for failing to perform their advertised review and analysis before recommending that their clients invest in the Bayou hedge funds that were later discovered to be a fraud.

In a settled administrative proceeding, the Commission issued an order finding that Hennessee Group and Gradante did not perform key elements of the due diligence that they had represented they would conduct prior to recommending investments in the Bayou hedge funds. The SEC also finds that they failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into red flags concerning Bayou. Hennessee Group and Gradante routinely represented to clients and prospective clients that they would not recommend investments in hedge funds that did not satisfy all phases of their due diligence evaluation.

“Forewarned is forearmed — investment advisers must make good on their promises or face the consequences of vigorous SEC enforcement action,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

“As the Commission found, these investment advisers failed to honor the representations they made to their clients and did not disclose these material departures from their advertised services,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “The advice that clients receive from hedge fund consultants is especially critical when the hedge funds are neither regulated nor transparent.”

According to the Commission’s order, approximately 40 clients invested millions of dollars in the Bayou hedge funds from February 2003 through August 2005 after the Hennessee Group recommended those investments. Most of the money was lost through trading or dissipated by Bayou’s principals, who defrauded their investors by fabricating Bayou’s performance in client account statements and year-end financial statements. The SEC charged the managers of the Bayou hedge funds with fraud in 2005.

The Commission’s order finds that Hennessee Group and Gradante failed to conduct the portfolio and trading analysis that it had advertised to clients. Instead of analyzing Bayou’s results and processes through a review of Bayou’s historical trading methods to determine whether the fund was, in fact, successfully executing its purported day-trading strategy, Hennessee Group and Gradante decided not to perform any analysis after Bayou refused to produce its trading data. They relied entirely on Bayou’s uncorroborated representations about its strategy and its purported rates of return.

The Commission’s order also finds that despite conflicting reports from Bayou about the identity of their independent auditor, Hennessee Group and Gradante failed to verify Bayou’s relationship with its auditor. In fact, the accounting firm that purportedly conducted Bayou’s annual audit was a non-existent entity fabricated by one of Bayou’s principals, who was identified in publicly available state accountancy board records as the registered agent for the bogus accounting firm.

According to the Commission’s order, Hennessee Group and Gradante also failed to respond to red flags concerning Bayou that came to their attention while they were monitoring Bayou on behalf of their clients. In particular, they failed to inquire or investigate when Bayou provided contradictory responses regarding the identity of its auditor or to adequately inquire about a rumor that one of Bayou’s principals was affiliated with Bayou’s purported outside auditing firm.

The Commission’s order finds that Hennessee Group and Gradante violated Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The order requires Hennessee Group and Gradante to pay $814,644.12 in disgorgement and penalties, and to cease and desist from committing or causing further violations. The parties also are required to adopt policies to ensure adequate disclosures in the future and to provide copies of the Commission’s Order to all current and prospective clients for a period of two years.

Hennessee Group and Gradante consented to the entry of the Commission’s order without admitting or denying the findings.
# # #
For more information, contact:
Antonia Chion
Associate Director, SEC’s Division of Enforcement
(202) 551-4842
Yuri B. Zelinsky
Assistant Director, SEC’s Division of Enforcement
(202) 551-4769

California Investment Advisor Exemption for Certain Hedge Fund Managers

9 Replies

In the article Connecticut Hedge Fund Registration Exemption, we discussed that certain states like Connecticut provide administrative orders allowing hedge fund managers an exemption from the registration provisions under certain circumstances.

Similarly certain states have provided a similar exemption to hedge fund managers through the securities commission rule making process. For example, California Rule 260.204.9 provides that hedge fund managers are exempt from registration with the California Securities Commission if (i) the manager has $25 million or more in assets under management and (ii) has less than 15 clients (a hedge fund counts as a single client). As with all exemptions from investment advisor registration, the hedge fund manager must make sure that it does not hold itself out as an investment advisor. The California Rule also provides an exemption for managers of venture capital funds. Continue reading →