Tag Archives: hedge fund

MFA Releases Sound Practices Guide for Hedge Funds

2 Replies

Guide Focuses on Hedge Fund Risk Management and Other Operational Issues

Unfortunately the new world of hedge fund investing and hedge fund due diligence has become more complicated and hedge fund management companies now need to increase their focus on operational and business issues.  While many managers are happy to attend to their trading strategies and risk management procedures, the managers who will be able to grow their AUM most successfully in the coming years are those managers who focus on many of the business and operational issues which investors are now wholly concerned with.  The updated 2009 Sound Practices guide by the Managed Funds Association (press release below) provides an outline of the major issues which managers should address with respect to their businesses.

Overview of Sound Practices Guide

The Sound Practices guide is similar to the President’s Working Group report Hedge Fund Best Practices, but also includes more information for managers.  I skimmed through the Sound Practices guide (it is 277 pages) and found that much of the information is extremely useful.  One of the overarching themes of the guide is that it does not ask managers to take the “one size fits all” approach, but asks managers to individually assess whether or not a certain practice is appropriate for their particular business.

I found the section dealing with the disclosures and hedge fund offering documents particular good.  As a reminder to hedge fund managers, offering documents should be updated at least annually, or more frequently if there are material changes in the fund’s investment program, structure or management company.  Additionally, any changes to offering documents should be communicated to all existing investors (either by sending out a new PPM or through another type of disclosure).

Other sections I was particularly interested in were: (i) the section dealing with investor letters and communications, (ii) side letters and parallel separately managed accounts (which are becoming more popular), (iii) valuation and policies, (iv) risk management, (v) due diligence, (vi) AML.  A due diligence guide for hedge fund investors was also included, but I felt like this was a pretty weak DD questionnaire – managers are likely to receive much more detailed requests for information.

Recommendation for Hedge Fund Managers

I recommend that hedge fund managers who are immediately seeking capital from institutions and high net worth investors read through this Sound Practices guide and take notes.  Managers should reach each practice and asses whether it applies to their fund operations and, if so, how such a practice should be implemented.  Managers may want to highlight certain items and ask their attorney what they should do.  These sound practices will help managers to create strong businesses which are able to grow over the long run.

[http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com]

****

Managed Funds Association Takes Steps to Restore Investor Confidence with Enhanced Best Practices & Investor Due Diligence Recommendations

WASHINGTON, Mar 31, 2009 — Managed Funds Association (MFA) today took steps to restore investor confidence in the markets with the release of its newly enhanced Sound Practices for Hedge Fund Managers, including a due diligence questionnaire for investors to use as they consider whom to trust with their investments.

The 2009 edition of Sound Practices, MFA’s fifth version of its pioneering guidance that was first published in 2000, incorporates the recommendations provided in the final President’s Working Group’s (PWG) Best Practices for the Hedge Fund Industry Report of the Asset Managers’ Committee plus additional guidance that goes above and beyond the scope of those recommendations.

Richard H. Baker, MFA President and CEO, said, “The hedge fund industry has a strong role in helping to restore financial stability and investor confidence, and to hasten economic recovery. While policy makers consider sweeping regulatory reforms in the U.S. and abroad, and economic leaders gather for the G-20 in London, on April 2, the hedge fund industry is taking steps to restore investor trust through the promotion of sound business practices and tools for investors to use as they conduct ongoing due diligence of money managers.”

Sound Practices is the cornerstone of the Association’s initiative to collaborate with international organizations with the goal of establishing uniform global principles and guidance. MFA, the PWG Asset Managers’ Committee and the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) have committed to providing the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) with a set of unified principles of best practices before April 30, 2009.

“The hedge fund industry recognizes its responsibilities as liquidity providers and risk dispersers in the markets, and continues to take the lead in its approach to disclosure and investor protection as well as active market disciplines such as risk management and valuation which contribute to market soundness and investor protection. This latest edition of MFA’s seminal Sound Practices concludes many months of diligent work by leading hedge fund managers, service providers and MFA staff to provide updates and revisions for voluntary adoption by hedge fund managers.

“MFA has a decade-long tradition of robust Sound Practices. Today, more than ever before, investors will benefit from our due diligence questionnaire as they undertake robust diligence when considering an investment in a hedge fund. Investors can also benefit from reviewing the recommendations in Sound Practices as they consider operational, governance and other matters as part of their diligence when making an investment.” added Baker.

The 2009 edition of Sound Practices provides comprehensive updates in every area of guidance including recommendations for disclosure and responsibilities to investors; valuation policies and procedures; risk management; trading and business operations; compliance, conflicts of interest, and business practices; anti-money laundering; and business continuity and disaster recovery practices.

Major Revisions

Sound Practices is a dynamic blueprint written by the industry, for the industry, to provide peer-to-peer guidance to:

  • Strengthen business practices of the hedge fund industry through a strong framework of internal policies and practices;
  • Encourage individualized assessment and application of recommendations on one size does not fit all; and
  • Enhance market discipline in the global financial marketplace.

The revised edition includes substantially updated and expanded guidance in seven areas:

  • Disclosure and Investor Protection: Establishes practices intended to assist a hedge fund in fulfilling its responsibilities to its investors;
  • Valuation: Establishes a framework, governance and policies and procedures for valuations of assets;
  • Risk Management: Establishes an overall approach to risk monitoring, measurement and management. Also describes types of risk and recommendations on management thereof;
  • Trading and Business Operations: Establishes policies and procedures for management of trading operations including relationships with counterparties, use of service providers, accounting, technology, best execution and soft dollar arrangements;
  • Compliance, Conflicts and Business Practices: Establishes guidance for the adoption of a culture of compliance including a code of ethics, compliance manual, record keeping, conflicts of interest, training/education of personnel and more;
  • Anti-Money Laundering: Updates MFA’s seminal AML guidance; and
  • Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery: Establishes general principles, contingency planning, crisis management and disaster recovery.

Baker noted that, “Ultimately, each hedge fund manager must determine whether and how to tailor these Sound Practices to its individual business. We believe that the strong business practices in Sound Practices are an important complement to a smart regulatory framework and that strong business practices and robust investor diligence are critical to addressing investor protection concerns.”

For a copy of Sound Practices please visit: www.managedfunds.org

About Managed Funds Association

MFA is the voice of the global alternative investment industry. Its members are professionals in hedge funds, funds of funds and managed futures funds, as well as industry service providers. Established in 1991, MFA is the primary source of information for policy makers and the media and the leading advocate for sound business practices and industry growth. MFA members include the vast majority of the largest hedge fund groups in the world who manage a substantial portion of the approximately $1.5 trillion invested in absolute return strategies. MFA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with an office in New York. For more information, please visit: www.managedfunds.org

****

Other related hedge fund law articles include

CFTC Fines BD/FCM For Books and Records Violations

Leave a reply

Firm Fails to Institute Procedure for Bunched Orders

(www.hedgefundlawblog.com)

The fines can be hefty for breaking CFTC regulations or NFA rules.  We have seen a large number of actions both with the SEC and the CFTC as well as with the NFA.  Below is another example of a group who has been fined for failing to supervise its employees.  I think maybe even more importantly the group below got into trouble for not having written policies regarding “bunching” client orders.

Yesterday I wrote a post about hedge fund bunched orders and I specifically stated how important it is for managers to understand how bunched orders are allocated to their separately managed account clients.  I discussed how it is important from a disclosure standpoint and that each manager should have the broker’s back office or compliance group review the disclosures regarding bunched orders so that the manager is sure that the disclosure is accurate.  Evidently the broker below did not have managers who followed this protocol.  I would imagine that it is likely that managers had a broad statement that gave them the ability to allocate trades to client accounts in their own discretion.  In the future broad statements like these are going to become less prevalent and specific statements regarding the actual allocation procedures will become the industry best practice, if not the industry standard.

****

Release: 5639-09
For Release: March 26, 2009

CFTC Sanctions ADM Investor Services, Inc. $200,000 For Failing To Diligently Supervise Its Employees

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today simultaneously filed and settled charges against ADM Investor Services, Inc. (ADMIS) for violating rules governing post-execution allocations, maintenance of books and records, and supervision of its employees. The CFTC order sanctioned ADMIS with a $200,000 civil monetary penalty, among other things.

The CFTC entered an order on March 26, 2009, which finds that during 2002 to 2004, ADMIS, a Chicago-based registered futures commission merchant, failed to diligently supervise its employees concerning post-execution allocations of bunched orders.

According to the order, ADMIS had no written policy or procedures concerning post-execution allocations of bunched orders. To the extent ADMIS had unwritten procedures concerning such allocations, ADMIS on certain occasions failed to implement those procedures, the order finds. Additionally, ADMIS allowed an account manager to conduct post-execution allocations days after orders were originally executed and failed to maintain records that identify orders subject to the post-execution allocations. Finally, the order finds that ADMIS prepared, but failed to keep, forms related to such allocations.

Post-execution allocation is a procedure where an account manager is permitted to bunch customer orders together for execution, and to allocate them to individual accounts at the end of the day. Bunching of orders involves an account manager placing trades for two or more customers at the same time in the same order. By allowing all customers the opportunity to have their orders bunched, customers may receive better execution and better pricing of their orders. After the bunched orders are executed, an account manager must assign the trades to customers’ accounts, a process known as allocation. The allocation must be made in a manner that is fair and equitable.

The order also requires ADMIS to implement enhanced procedures to assure adherence to rules governing post execution allocation of trades.

The CFTC wishes to thank the National Futures Association for its cooperation in this matter.

The following Division of Enforcement staff was responsible for this case: W. Derek Shakabpa, Eliud Ramirez, Nathan Ploener, Manal Sultan, Lenel Hickson, Jr., Vincent A. McGonagle, and Stephen J. Obie.

Last Updated: March 26, 2009

****

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions on this article or if you are interested in starting a hedge fund.  Other related articles include:

Hedge Fund Law – State Law Issues

Leave a reply

Dealing with Ambiguous State Securities Laws

An issue which often arises during the planning phase of the hedge fund formation process is whether certain state securities or investment advisory laws or regulations apply to a certain fact situation.  Many times these issues arise in the context of investment advisor registration (especially with regard to “custody” and net worth requirements), but they can also apply to less common issues (such as spot forex registration and matters involving commodities and futures licensing).  The problem is not only that the laws and regulations may not apply to a specific situation (many state laws are based on a model code which was written over 50 years ago), but also that there are no judicial or administrative actions which can provide valuable insight into how the state or the enforcement division would view a similar situation.

Unfortunately it can be very hard to receive clarification on these laws and regulations  and sometimes reaching out to state regulators can be an exercise in futility.  In a recent call with the California Department of Corporations (which is in charge of, among other things, administering the state securities laws) I was practically scolded by the staff attorney for first reaching out to the state to determine if they had any informal thoughts on my question.  In situations where we cannot receive informal guidance from a state, the client may choose to request a no-action letter from the state with regard to their situation.

Requesting a No-Action Letter or Interpretive Opinion

NASAA, the North American Securities Administrators Association, has provided this description of no-action letters and interpretive opinions:

Many state securities regulators have the authority issue “no-action letters” in which staff confirms that a transaction carried out under a set of assumed facts will not result in a recommendation for enforcement action.  Some states also issue “interpretive opinions” in which staff provides guidance by indicating how a provision of law applies to a situation presented.

Generally states will allow groups to submit either request.  The request letter will include a restatement of the applicable facts and laws and an argument as to why the requested relief or opinion should be granted.  The attorney will draft this letter on behalf of the manager.  The manager will also need to pay a fee to the state, usually $100-$300 to receive an answer to the request letter.  There is no guarantee that the state will agree with manager and grant any relief.  It will usually take a minimum of 30 days to receive an answer from the state.

Unfortunately the process is both expensive and time consuming.

Fixing the Problem

There are many problems with the federalism system with regard to securities regulation.  One of the biggest issues is the lack of uniformity between the state laws and the disparity between states with regard to enforcement.  I posted an article yesterday about what NASAA is doing this area.  I commend NASAA for taking this step forward – it will be a big improvement over the current system and hopefully will lead to more uniform laws (and application of those laws) throughout the states.  However, this is not a panacea and we are unlikely to see truly fair and efficient enforcement of laws unless there is a wholesale scrapping of the current system and unfortunately even then we are still left with federalism which provides state securities commissions with powers that most do not understand how to deal with.

Ultimately this increases costs to the managers and ultimately investors.

Schwab Drops Hedge Fund Platform

4 Replies

Self Directed IRA Investments in Funds Likely to Become Harder to Accomplish

In an earlier article about hedge fund IRA investments I discussed the general process which an investor will need to go through in order to invest their IRA assets in a hedge fund.  As a gross generalization the investor’s custodian will need to make the actual investment into the hedge fund.  In the past I have helped many clients navigate the hurdles which are sometimes involved in this process.  While the process is not exactly easy, it may become more difficult in the future based on anticipated regulatory changes.  These developments may make it harder for investors to invest in a hedge fund with their IRA assets.

In addition, Schwab has recently announced that they will no longer allow self-directed IRA investors to invest in alternative investments such as hedge funds.  This news comes as a big surprise to both advisors and investors.  Schwab was known for having a very good platform for self-directed IRAs.  In fact, out of all of the custodians that my clients have used for these transactions, Schwab was by far the best.  Their representatives were well versed in the mechanics of these investments where many other firms seemed to be learning on the job.  There was more than one time when a client’s investor had to switch IRA custodians in order to find a group which allowed a self-directed IRA investment into a hedge fund.

With Schwab exiting this space it may be more difficult for some investors to try to find good custodians who are able to process these transactions.  I have known at least a couple of well name groups who difficult to work with and lost business because of that.  The article I linked to above noted the backlash by RIAs and hopefully Schwab will reconsider based on the community support for their platform – I do believe that the reason for the backlash is because of good support which was provided to both the managers and customers.  So many times we face horrible customers service and it is always refreshing to find groups who do value the customer.

Hopefully we will be able to continue to rely on Schwab for these services in the future.

Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Hedge Fund Start Up Presentation

15 Replies

How to Start a Hedge Fund in 2009

Below is a link to a powerpoint presentation in which I detail the background information a hedge fund manager must have prior to starting the hedge fund formation process.  The presentation is designed to familiarize a manager with the process of forming a fund while identifying potential issues which the manager should be aware of during the process.

The presentation is 18 slides long and is about 40 minutes.  I will also be posting a video here shortly.

Hedge Fund Presentation with Voice

Starting a hedge fund in 2009 (voice) (voice-over powerpoint)

For more viewing options, please see our Hedge Fund Lawyer youtube profile.

Hedge Fund Presentation without Voice
Starting a Hedge Fund

Thoughts on Hedge Fund Offering Documents

Leave a reply

FAQs on Offering Documents

I recently read an article by a hedge fund administration firm which discussed hedge fund offering documents and start up hedge fund expenses.  I thought this was an interesting topic and one which is popular with many of my start up clients.  Below I discuss some of the common questions regarding the offering documents and also provide reasons why a start up manager should use my law firm for starting a hedge fund.

****

Offering documents are just boilerplate – why are they so expensive?

This is a common misperception.  Offering documents (if done correctly) are not merely boilerplate where the attorney pops in the fund name and the address – offering documents are a tailored to the specific needs of the client based on the client’s investment program and fund structure.

For instance, there are at least 12 different questions related to the management fee and performance fee/ performance allocation.  There are at least 22 different questions related to the fund’s contribution periods and withdrawal periods.  This level of customization does not come from a boilerplate form.  Furthermore, many of these questions or options may have specific implications for the manager’s business either from a legal standpoint or a business standpoint.  Many times the lawyer will need to have an in-depth discussion with the manager to help the manager determine which option is right for the fund.

Why are offering documents so long?

Offering documents are long – there is no getting around it.  The structure of the offering documents are determined by the federal and state securities laws and thus there is not really any wiggle room.  While it is often said that the hedge fund industry is “not regulated” or “lightly regulated” there are many hedge fund laws and regulations which managers must follow.   These laws dictate many aspects of the documents and are why offering documents are so long (and also why offering documents from different firms are structured so similarly).

In this prior post, discussing “Prospectus Creep” we discussed the length of offering documents:

4.  Is the Prospectus written for the Manager or the Investor?

Castle Hall discusses the interesting phenomenon of “Prospectus Creep” or basically the lengthening of hedge fund offering documents as hedge fund lawyers add more clauses to the documents which are designed to protect the managers.  Castle Hall notes that “today’s offering documents are typically drafted to give maximum freedom of action for the manager and often permit unrestricted investment activities. Investors are also faced with offering documents which list every possible risk factor in an attempt to absolve the manager from responsibility under virtually all loss scenarios.”

HFLB: We agree that offering documents can be long and that often they contain a long list of risk factors associated with the investment program.  The purpose of the offering documents is to explain the manager’s investment program and if the manager truly has a “kitchen sink” investment program, then all of the disclosures and risk factors are a necessary part of the offering documents.  However we also feel that hedge fund offering documents should accurately describe the manager’s proposed investment program and that if the manager has a very specific strategy, he should provide as much detail to the investors as possible.


Can I draft offering documents myself?  I have a friend who has some documents I think I can modify.

No.  You should never draft offering documents yourself.  I have seen countless examples of people who have tried to draft their own offering documents based on another fund.  Many times these people will ask me to “check the documents.”  Ninety-five percent of the time a brief skim of the documents will reveal major errors that cannot simply be fixed with a 2 hour review.   In most all occasions the documents will need to be completely scrapped.

Are all law firm offering documents the same?

No, but law firm documents are all very similar.

It is an interesting phenomenon in the hedge fund legal world that attorneys are always interested in (or obsessed with) reading the other law firms offering documents. As one of those lawyers that is very interested in the differences between the offering documents, I have studied the documents from most all of the major hedge fund law firms including the firms listed below which are considered to be the best in the industry.

  • Sidley Austin
  • Shartsis Friese
  • Seward & Kissel
  • Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman
  • Schulte Roth & Zabel
  • Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
  • K&L Gates

I have probably read through 500 different offering documents (many from the same large law firms) and have found most documents to be quite similar. For the most part with a name brand firm you are going to get a quality product that is probably pretty equal to another large or name brand law firm.  These documents will very likely protect you in all of the necessary ways.

However, that is not to say that all large law firm offering documents are perfect.  I have seen offering documents which cost over $70,000 with typos and errors.  Many times expensive offering documents are sloppy in certain respects – I expect this is because many large law firms use inexperienced associate attorneys to draft the offering documents.

Does price equal quality?

Not necessarily.  While you are less likely to receive white glove service from a document shop, BigLaw does not necessarily equate to fine quality – especially for small and start up managers.  In a large law firm you are going to probably initially talk with a partner about your program who will then relay the information to an associate who will be in charge of your project.  This means that your offering documents are likely drafted by an overworked associate who has relatively little experience.

I always recommend a start up manager ask the law firm who will be drafting the offering documents and how much experience the person has.  Many large law firms will say that an associate will draft the documents but the partner will review prior to finalization.  I find it hard to believe that a partner will review offering documents – many times this is not true.

Low cost offering documents – are you getting less quality?

In some cases yes, but in the case of my law firm documents the answer is a resounding NO.  While my firm will charge around $13,000 to $18,000 for offering documents (considered to be on the lower end), this does not mean that the quality of my work is less than any other firm.

As I have mentioned before on this site, I have worked with a substantial number of start up hedge funds and have drafted the offering documents or worked on around 150 funds.   Also, I have spent a great deal of time dissecting offering documents from a large number of firms.  My dedication to completely understanding the offering documents, along with my passion for the industry and helping managers with their business issues makes my services a compelling alternative to other firms which may cost more.

Additionally, I value the client relationship and always strive to return emails and phone calls promptly.

Conclusion

While the offering documents are the tangible item which you receive from your hedge fund lawyer, it is not the only part of the representation.  The offering documents are not valuable as objects, but really as a representation of the prior experience of the attorney who prepared those documents for your fund, based on your needs.

****

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

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website.  Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund.  If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about becoming registered as a CPO or CTA, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Hedge Fund Taxes May Increase under Obama

Leave a reply

Obama to Propos Taxing Hedge Fund Carried Interest

Groups such as the New York Times and Daily Finance are reporting that Obama’s proposed fiscal 2010 budget, which will be released tomorrow, will include provisions which will increase taxes for hedge fund managers (and private equity fund managers).   Such a provision would likely be written to provide that a carried interest (also called a performance allocation) paid to a management company would be characterized as ordinary income instead of capital gain (to the extent the underlying profits were long term capital gains which are subject to a lower tax rate).

Hedge fund managers are not likely to receive much sympathy from the general public, but this is a hot button issue which will likely incense many of Obama’s supporters.  Hedge fund taxation has been an issue batted around in the media and was especially popular a year and a half ago when the Blackston group was preparing to go public (see Bloomberg article).  The issue has been smoldering for a while (see Hedge Fund Tax Issues 2007), but groups are beginning to examine and analyze this issue (see the abstract of an academic report below) rather than react in a knee-jerk manner.

What we will ask of the President, lawmakers and regulators is that they examine the issue from an academic perspective and make informed decisions.  Hopefully reports like the one below will persuade lawmakers to ultimately keep the carried interest tax preference for hedge funds and private equity funds.

We will continue to report on this issue and will release any applicable information once the fiscal budget is released.  Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions if you have any hedge fund law questions.

****

Measuring the Tax Subsidy in Private Equity and Hedge Fund Compensation

Karl Okamoto
Drexel University College of Law

Thomas J. Brennan
Northwestern University School of Law

February 26, 2008

Drexel College of Law Research Paper No. 2008-W-01

Abstract:

A debate is raging over the taxation of private equity and hedge fund managers. It is being played out in the headlines, in Congress and among legal scholars. This paper offers a new analysis of the subject. We provide an analytical model that allows us to compare the relative risk-reward benefit enjoyed by private equity and hedge fund managers and other managerial types such as corporate executives and entrepreneurs. We look to relative benefits in order to determine the extent to which the current state of the world favors the services of a private equity or hedge fund manager over these other workers. Our conclusion is that private equity and hedge fund managers do outperform other workers on a risk-adjusted, after-tax basis. In the case of hedge fund managers, this superiority persists even after the preferential tax treatment is eliminated, suggesting that taxes alone do not provide a complete explanation. We assume that over time compensation of private equity and hedge fund managers should approach equilibrium on a risk-adjusted basis with other comparable compensation opportunities. In the meantime, however, our model suggests that differences in tax account for a substantial portion of the disjuncture that exists at the moment. It also quantifies the significant excess returns to private fund managers that must be taken into account by arguments in support of their current tax treatment by analogy to entrepreneurs and corporate executives. This analysis is important for two reasons. It provides a perspective on the current issue that has so far been ignored by answering the question of how taxation may affect behavior in the market for allocating human capital. It also provides quantitative precision to the current debate which relies significantly on loosely drawn analogies between fund managers on the one hand and entrepreneurs and corporate executives on the other. This paper provides the mathematics that these comparisons imply.

Other hedge fund tax and law articles include:

New Hedge Fund Laws Proposed in Connecticut

2 Replies

State to Increase Regulation of Hedge Funds

(www.hedgefundlawblog.com)  Connecticut, home of many of the biggest hedge funds in the world, may begin regulating hedge funds in a heavy handed manner.  Recently state lawmakers have introduced three bills (Raised Bill No. 953, Raised Bill No. 6477 and Raised Bill No. 6480) which would greatly increase oversight of hedge funds which have a presence in Connecticut.   This article provides an overview of the three raised bills and provides reprints the actual text of these bills.

Raised Bill No. 953

The largest of the three bills, No. 953 has the following central features:

  • Definitions certain terms (including the term “Hedge Fund”) which are used throughout the bill.
  • Provides that, starting in 2011, hedge funds may not have individual investors  who do not have $2.5 million in “investment assets” (different than net worth)
  • Provides that, starting in 2011, hedge funds may not have institutional investors who do not have $5 million in “investment assets”
  • Provides that funds must disclose certain conflicts of interest of the manager
  • Provides that funds must disclose the existence of side letters
  • Requires an annual audit (beginning in 2010)

The above provisions would apply to those funds which have an office in Connecticut where employees regularly conduct business on behalf of the fund.   It is currently unclear whether there will be any sort of grandfathering provisions for those funds which currently have investors who do  not meet the “investment assets” threshold.   Another interesting part of the bill is that it defines a hedge fund with reference to Section 3(c)(1) and Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.  The recently proposed Hedge Fund Transparency Act would actually eliminate these sections and add new Section 6(a)(6) and Section 6(a)(7).

Raised Bill No. 6477

The next bill is No. 6477 which would require hedge funds to be regulated by the Connecticut Banking Commission.  The bill requires hedge funds to purchase a $500 license issued by the Connecticut Banking Commissioner prior to conducting business in Connecticut.  The license would need to be purchased each year.  The bill also provides the Banking Commission with authority to adopt regulations.

This bill is interesting because it is fundamentally different from most hedge fund regulations which seek to regulate the management company through investment advisor registration.  This bill regulates the fund entity (as opposed to the management company) and does so through the power of the state to regulate banking.   Right now it looks like this bill will apply to all hedge funds, even those who do not utilize leverage.  It is not currently clear why or how the Banking Commission has jurisdiction non-banking private pools of capital, especially for those funds which do not utilize any sort of leverage.

It is also interesting to note that No. 6477 would apply regardless of the registration status of the fund’s management company.  This means that a fund could be subject to SEC oversight and may also be subject to direct oversight by the Connecticut Department of Banking (“DOB”), which means the DOB could presumably conduct audits of the fund.  Of course, this could potentially greatly increase operational costs for hedge funds with an office in Connecticut.

Raised Bill No. 6480

The final bill is No. 6480 which would require Connecticut based hedge funds with Connecticut pension fund investors to disclose detailed portfolio information to such pension funds upon request.  It goes without saying that this bill is likely to receive a considerable amount of scrutiny from the Connecticut hedge fund community.

Conclusion

The hedge fund industry continues to be a major focus of both state and federal lawmakers who are anxious to start regulating these vehicles.  Unfortunately we are witnessing a patchwork approach to regulation where there is little communication between the states and the federal lawmakers.  If other states follow Connecticut’s lead then we face the potential situation where funds in each state will need to follow state specific laws enacted by quick-to-legislate, out-of-touch lawmakers.   Efficiency in the securities markets is undercut by overlapping and unnecessary regulations – both managers and investors would be better served by a comprehensive effort to revise the securities laws at the federal and state levels.

****

Raised Bill No. 953
January Session, 2009

Referred to Committee on Banks
Introduced by: (BA)

AN ACT CONCERNING HEDGE FUNDS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) As used in this section:

(1) “Hedge fund” means any investment company, as defined in Section 3(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, located in this state (A) that claims an exemption under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940; (B) whose offering of securities is exempt under the private offering safe harbor criteria in Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act; and (C) that meets any other criteria as may be established by the Banking Commissioner in regulations adopted under subsection (f) of this section. A hedge fund is located in this state if such fund has an office in Connecticut where employees regularly conduct business on behalf of the hedge fund;

(2) “Institutional investor” means an investor other than an individual investor including, but not limited to, a bank, savings and loan association, registered broker, dealer, investment company, licensed small business investment company, corporation or any other legal entity;

(3) “Investment assets” includes any security, real estate held for investment purposes, bank deposits, cash and cash equivalents, commodity interests held for investment purposes and such other forms of investment assets as may be established by the Banking Commissioner in regulations adopted under subsection (f) of this section;

(4) “Investor” means any holder of record of a class of equity security in a hedge fund;

(5) “Major litigation” means any legal proceeding in which the hedge fund is a party which if decided adversely against the hedge fund would require such fund to make material future expenditures or have a material adverse impact on the hedge fund’s financial position;

(6) “Manager” means an individual located in this state who has direct and personal responsibility for the operation and management of a hedge fund; and

(7) “Material” means, with respect to future expenditures or adverse impact on the hedge fund’s financial position, more than one per cent of the assets of the hedge fund.

(b) On or after January 1, 2011, no hedge fund shall consist of individual investors who, individually or jointly with a spouse, have less than two million five hundred thousand dollars in investment assets or institutional investors that have less than five million dollars in assets.

(c) The manager shall disclose to each investor or prospective investor in a hedge fund, not later than thirty days before any investment in the hedge fund, any financial or other interests the manager may have that conflict with or are likely to impair, the manager’s duties and responsibilities to the fund or its investors.

(d) The manager shall disclose, in writing, to each investor in a hedge fund (1) any material change in the investment strategy and philosophy of the fund and the departure of any individual employed by such fund who exercises significant control over the investment strategy or operation of the fund, (2) the existence of any side letters provided to investors in the fund, and (3) any major litigation involving the fund or governmental investigation of the fund.

(e) On January 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, the manager shall disclose, in writing, to each investor in a hedge fund (1) the fee schedule to be paid by the hedge fund including, but not limited to, management fees, brokerage fees and trading fees, and (2) a financial statement indicating the investor’s capital balance that has been audited by an independent auditing firm.

(f) The Banking Commissioner may adopt regulations, in accordance with chapter 54 of the general statutes, to implement the provisions of this section.\

****

Raised Bill No. 6477
January Session, 2009

Referred to Committee on Banks
Introduced by: (BA)

AN ACT CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF HEDGE FUNDS AND PRIVATE CAPITAL FUNDS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) No person shall establish or conduct business in this state as a hedge fund or private capital fund without a license issued by the Banking Commissioner. Applicants for such license shall apply to the Department of Banking on forms prescribed by the commissioner. Each application shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred dollars. Such license shall be valid for one year and may be renewed upon payment of a fee of five hundred dollars and in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The Banking Commissioner shall adopt regulations in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the general statutes for purposes of this section.

****

Raised Bill No. 6480
January Session, 2009

Referred to Committee on Banks
Introduced by: (BA)

AN ACT REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS IN HEDGE FUNDS AND PRIVATE CAPITAL FUNDS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) Any hedge fund or private capital fund that is (1) domiciled in the state, and (2) receiving money from pension funds domiciled in the state shall disclose to each prospective pension investor in such funds, upon request, financial information including, but not limited to, detailed portfolio information relative to the assets and liabilities of such funds.