Financial Industry Developments€¦ · Data destruction policy (Regulation S-P; Massachusetts;...

Financial Industry Developments

Nicholas S. Hodge, Partner K&L GatesSean P. Mahoney, Partner, K&L GatesPaul J. Marnoto, Partner, K&L Gates

OCIE Cybersecurity Risk Alert

Background April 15, 2014 -- SEC OCIE published a

National Exam Program Risk Alert setting forth OCIE expectations for RIAs and BDs with respect to cybersecurity 50 RIA’s and BD’s examined Alert includes a sample document request Request can be viewed (in part) as an indication of

what OCIE was expecting to see

4

Bases for Cybersecurity Exams Rule 15c3-5 (Exchange Act) requires broker-dealers with market access to

maintain policies and procedures to protect “information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, perusal, inspection, recording or destruction” Seems to be viewed as imposing a general

requirement to address cybersecurity 5

Bases for Cybersecurity Exams Rule 206(4)-7 (Advisers Act); Rule 38a-1

(’40 Act) Require compliance policies and procedures SEC noted in preamble to Rule 38a-1 that

business continuity obligations fall under advisers’ fiduciary duties

6

Specific Documents Requested Written information security policy

(Regulation S-P, Regulation S-ID) Documentation of responsibilities of

employees and managers for cybersecurity Written guidance and periodic training for

employees and vendors

7

Specific Documents Requested Data destruction policy (Regulation S-P;

Massachusetts; FACT Act) Records management program is essential

for cybersecurity and for a number of other reasons

Written cybersecurity incident response policy (i.e., “playbook”)

8

Specific Documents Requested Written policy and training addressing

removable and mobile media Vendor management information security questionnaires cybersecurity contractual requirements

Written incident alert thresholds

9

Other Requests or Expectations Written inventories and assessments Identification of standards (such as NIST)

used by firm Expectation that firm has process to keep up

with emerging best practices (e.g., FS-ISAC) Protection against DDoS attacks Cybersecurity insurance

10

Results of OCIE Reviews Ed Schmidt, Senior Technology Officer for

OCIE, commented on the results of cybersecurity examinations at a September 11-12 conference

11

Concerns of Firms Examined Network Breach Employee misconduct Social engineering Mobile device security Malware Vendor management Compromise of computers or clouds

12

Attacks Experienced 87% of firms experienced attacks 20% of firms experienced attacks directly

and through vendors

13

What Firms Are Doing Participating in industry information

sharing groups (e.g., FS-ISAC) Using various security frameworks COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and

Related Technology) Information Security Forum SANS Institute

14

Private Equity Developments

16

Private Equity Developments

SEC Presence Exams – Notes from the Frontline

Impact of SEC’s “Broken Windows” Enforcement Approach

17

Presence Exams

Introduce National Exam Program and OCIE to new registrants Promote compliance with the Investment

Advisers Act and focus on certain areas of particular importance Report observations from exams

17

Three Primary Objectives:

Presence Exams

Marketing Portfolio Management Conflicts of Interest Safety of client assets Valuations

Five Areas of Particular Focus

18

Presence Exams

Transaction-based compensation Failure to comply with the Custody Rule Misallocation of expenses among clients Portfolio company fees E-mails part of books and records Transactions pre-dating registration “Misleading” use of brand name Untimely submission of personal securities holdings reports

Observations from the Front Lines

19

“Broken Windows” Strategy

“Broken Windows”

Based on the premise that no securities law violation is too small to prosecute and that minor enforcement actions lead to greater overall compliance.

SEC’s “tough cop” Approach

21


Lack of clear guidance as to the applicability of certain rules (e.g., transaction-based compensation)

Enforcement actions brought for even minor violations Risk of reputational harm due to SEC’s recent practice of

publicizing even minor enforcement actions

When combined with focused Presence Exams, leading the private funds industry to be more conservative.

Creating Culture of Fear?

22


Greater transparency of portfolio company fees More disclosure of fees that are not subject to

management fee offsets (e.g., compensation of operating partners and other consultants)

Managers foregoing certain fees to avoid engaging in potential broker activities.

Effect of Strategy on Industry

23

Private Placement Developments

The Committee noted that accredited investor status is intended to define a class of investors who are able to fend for themselves and therefore do not need the protections that the Securities Act of 1933 was intended to provide. The Committee expressed the view that the “current definition is, at best, a highly imperfect proxy for financial sophistication and access to information.”

SEC Investment Advisory Committee Recommendations of October 9, 2014 Regarding Accredited Investor Definition

25

26

Rather than focusing on increasing the financial thresholds in Rule 501, the Committee has urged the SEC to consider alternative approaches, such as: Basing the definition on ownership of financial

assets or liquid assets. Enabling individuals to qualify as accredited

investors based on their financial sophistication, as evidenced by the attainment of professional credentials such as the series 7 securities license or the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

26

Committee recommendations to the SEC

Enabling individuals to qualify as accredited investors based on investment experience.

Limiting private offerings to a percentage of assets or income.

Facilitating third-party verification of accredited status.

It is not clear at this time whether the SEC will propose rules to implement any of these recommendations.

27

Adopted by the SEC on July 10, 2013. Limits availability of the Regulation D Rule 506 safe harbors

to offerings not involving a Covered Person that is subject to an enumerated Disqualifying Event (a “Bad Actor”).

Issuers must conduct an inquiry exercising “reasonable care” to determine whether a Bad Actor is involved in the offering.

Effective for all Rule 506 offerings occurring after September 23, 2013.

Disclosure to investors prior to subscription required for any disqualifying event occurring prior to September 23, 2013 involving a Covered Person.

Update on Rule 506(d) of Regulation D (the Bad Actors Provision)

28

“Disqualifying Events” include (among other things): Felony or misdemeanor convictions relating to

securities or false SEC filings; SEC disciplinary orders; and Being subject to an order, judgment, decree,

suspension, expulsion, or bar of any court or state securities commission that restrains a Covered Person from participating in securities and other finance-related activities.

Rule 506(d) - Disqualifying Events

29

“Covered Persons” include: The issuer, any predecessor of the issuer, or any affiliated issuer; Any director, executive officer, or other officer of the issuer

participating in the offering; A general partner or managing member of the issuer; Beneficial owners of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s

outstanding voting equity securities (calculated on the basis of voting power);

Any promoter connected with the issuer in any capacity at the time of sale; and

Any person that has been paid or will be paid for solicitation of purchasers in connection with the offering and any director, officer, general partner, or managing member of any such solicitor.

Rule 506(d) - Covered Persons

30

SEC guidance requires that the issuer look through the investor to determine beneficial ownership of securities.

Look through considerations include: Voting Power - includes the power to vote, or direct

the voting of, the investor’s interests in the issuer (e.g., a voting agreement). Investment Power - includes the power to dispose

of, or to direct the disposition of, the investor’s interests in the issuer (e.g., discretionary investment management relationships).

Rule 506(d) - 20% Beneficial Owners

31

Issuers cannot assume that a 20% beneficial owner does not exist because no single investor holds 20% or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting securities. Issuers should require each investor to disclose

the existence of voting and investment power relationships.

32

Requires that the issuer make a factual inquiry into whether any Covered Person is subject to a Disqualifying Event on an ongoing basis.

SEC guidance indicates that a combination of the following would satisfy the reasonable care standard: Representations regarding Bad Actor status; Contractual covenants to update Bad Actor

representations; and Periodic renewal of Bad Actor representations and

covenants through negative response letters.

Rule 506(d) - Reasonable Care

33

Absent cooperation from Covered Persons, responsibility falls upon the issuer to verify Bad Actor status. Research vendors offer background check tools,

but, absent guidance from the SEC, it is uncertain whether these tools would satisfy the reasonable care standard.

34

Identify all Covered Persons and those likely to become Covered Persons.

Integrate Bad Actor representations into placement agreements and reserve right to terminate the agreement and payment of fees if the placement agent and/or sub-agent becomes subject to a Disqualifying Event. Obtain Bad Actor representations from the fund’s,

adviser’s, managing member’s, etc. officers, executive officers and directors.

Rule 506(d) - Best Practices

35

Integrate Bad Actor representations into subscription materials and obtain Bad Actor representations from existing shareholders.

If any existing investor refuses to provide beneficial ownership and/or Bad Actor representations, consider engaging counsel to evaluate Rule 506(d) implications.

Obtain annual renewal of Bad Actor representations by negative consent.

36

Funds are wary of the 20% beneficial owner test. Cayman funds that delegate voting rights to STAR

Trusts are typically exempt because shareholders do not own “voting securities.” Some domestic funds have adopted provisions in

their organizational documents that prevent investors from acquiring 20% of the fund’s voting securities by shifting a portion of their investment into a class with no voting rights.

Act quickly upon notice that a Bad Actor is involved in an offering.

Rule 506(d) – Practical Guidance

37

SEC and State Regulator Orders and Settlements Funds and investment advisers continue to

struggle with the 506(d) implications of regulatory orders and settlements. In light of the look through guidance, all orders and

settlements where an issuer, its investment adviser or its GP or any of their affiliates is a party requires a 506(d) analysis. If the settlement or order would result in

disqualification, request waiver from the SEC or state regulator as part of the negotiations.

Rule 506(d) – Practical Guidance

38

Recertification The SEC indicated periodic re-certification of

506(d) representations is necessary, but has not provided guidance on the frequency. Many industry participants view annual affirmation by negative consent to be sufficient.

Rule 506(d) – Outstanding Interpretive Issues

39

Ongoing Disciplinary Obligations The SEC considers a Disqualifying Event that

limits the activities of an entity to terminate when the obligation terminates or the required action is accomplished. Ongoing obligations (e.g., requiring a compliance specialist to review procedures periodically) may result in indefinite reporting under 506(e) or indefinite disqualification, if not waived.

40

Money Market Fund Rule Revisions

Clair E. Pagnano, Partner, K&L Gates LLPGeorge P. Attisano, Counsel, K&L Gates LLP

MONEY MARKET FUND RULE CHANGES On July 23, 2014, the SEC adopted revisions to Rule 2a-

7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and related rules and forms

All money funds, except retail and government funds, must adopt a floating NAV structure

Money funds will be permitted to impose liquidity fees and redemption gates during times of market stress In certain cases, liquidity fee will be mandatory Government funds are exempt, but may voluntarily impose fees

and gates New disclosure requirements Revised diversification and stress-testing requirements

43

FLOATING NAV Money funds must adopt a floating NAV structure unless they

are retail or government funds. Floating NAV funds must: Use market valuations (instead of amortized cost) to determine NAV Calculate NAV to the 4th decimal place, i.e., $1.0000 (or equivalent

for other stable value funds) Retail and government funds may continue to:

Use amortized cost to value all holdings Calculate a stable $1 NAV (or equivalent)

NOTE: all funds, including floating NAV money funds, may use amortized cost to value securities with remaining maturities of 60 days or less

44

FLOATING NAV Retail funds can be sold only to natural persons

SEC expects funds to rely primarily on Social Security numbers Can establish procedures to determine that beneficial owners

investing through omnibus and tax-advantaged accounts are natural persons

Government funds must invest at least 99.5% of total assets in cash, government securities, and/or repurchase agreements that are collateralized solely by government securities or cash

Tax rules proposed to simplify accounting and exempt floating NAV funds from wash sale rules

Compliance date for floating NAV: October 14, 2016

45

FEES & GATES: LIQUIDITY FEES

If weekly liquid assets fall below 30%, a money fund may impose a liquidity fee of up to 2% if the board (and a majority of independent directors) determines this to be in the best interests of the fund

If weekly liquid assets fall below 10%, the fund will have to impose a 1% liquidity fee on all redemptions However, the board (and a majority of independent directors)

may determine that the fee is not in the best interests of the fund, or that a lower or higher fee (up to 2%) is in the fund’s best interests

46

FEES AND GATES: LIQUIDITY FEES

Board considerations: Changes in spreads for portfolio securities (based

on actual sales; dealer quotes; pricing vendor, mark-to-model, or matrix pricing; or otherwise) The maturities of the fund’s portfolio securities Actual or expected changes in the fund’s liquidity

profile in response to redemptions

47

FEES AND GATES: LIQUIDITY FEES

Board considerations, continued: The capability of the fund and its intermediaries to

rapidly impose a liquidity fee differing from a previous or default fee

For a floating NAV fund, the extent to which the fund’s NAV reflect liquidity costs

The fund’s past experience, if any, with imposing liquidity fees

Compliance date for liquidity fees: October 14, 2016

48

FEES AND GATES: REDEMPTION GATES If weekly liquid assets fall below 30%, a money

fund may suspend redemptions for up to 10 business days, with the approval of the board (and a majority of independent directors) Gate may be imposed for fewer than 10 days or lifted

before the 10th day Fund may not be gated more than 10 business days

in any 90-day period Compliance date for redemption gates: October

14, 2016

49

DISCLOSURE: NEW FORM N-CR

Triggered by: Imposition or removal of fees or gates Financial support from sponsor Security defaults For retail and government funds, a decline in NAV

below $0.9975 Must be filed within one business day of

triggering event

50

DISCLOSURE: NEW FORM N-CR Financial support by the sponsor includes: Capital contribution Purchase of a security in reliance on Rule 17a-9 Purchase of any defaulted or devalued security at par Letter of credit or indemnity Capital support agreements (whether or not the fund

ultimately receives) Performance guarantee Other similar action reasonably intended to increase

or stabilize the value or liquidity of the fund’s portfolio

51

DISCLOSURE: NEW FORM N-CR

Financial support does not include: Routine fee waiver or expense reimbursement Routine inter-fund lending Routine inter-fund fund share purchases Other actions that the board considers not intended to

increase or stabilize the fund’s value or liquidity Compliance date for new Form N-CR: July 14,

2015

52

DISCLOSURE: PROSPECTUS New standard prominent risk disclosure: Floating NAV or no guarantee that stable $1.00 will be

preserved Possibility of fees and/or gates (unless government

fund does not opt in) No guarantee of sponsor support (unless provided)

Floating NAV funds: disclose tax and operational issues

Fees and gates: discuss circumstances in which fees and gates may be imposed

Compliance date for prospectus disclosure: October 14, 2016

53

DISCLOSURE: SAI

Disclose occasions during past 10 years when: Weekly liquid assets fell below 10% or 30% and the

imposition of any fees or gates (but not for instances before April 14, 2016)

Fund sponsor provided financial support Compliance date for SAI disclosure: April 14,

2016

54

DISCLOSURE: WEBSITE Daily updated posting of:

Levels of daily and weekly liquid assets Net shareholder inflows and outflows Market-based NAVs Sponsor support Any imposition of fees and gates

Maintain information for 6 months Compliance date for website disclosure related to

Form N-CR: July 14, 2015 Compliance date for website disclosure not related

to Form N-CR: April 16, 2016

55

DISCLOSURE: FORM N-MFP Information will become publicly available

immediately upon filing (instead of current 60-day delay)

New information required: NAV (and shadow price), daily and weekly liquid assets, and

shareholder flows on a weekly basis within the monthly filing NAV (and shadow price) to the fourth decimal place (or

equivalent for other stable value funds) Include exempt government and retail funds as a category option

Compliance date for amended Form N-MFP: April 14, 2016

56

STRESS TESTING

Rule 2a-7 stress testing provisions revised to require funds to test the ability to maintain weekly liquid assets of at least 10% and minimize principal volatility under certain specified scenarios

New rules increase board reporting requirements

Compliance date for stress testing: April 14, 2016

57

DIVERSIFICATION Amendments to Rule 2a-7 diversification provisions:

Affiliate Aggregation — Certain entities that are affiliated with each other must be treated as single issuers for the 5% issuer diversification test

Removal of 25% Basket — Money funds, other than tax-exempt funds, will have to meet the 10% diversification limit for guarantors and demand feature providers. For tax-exempt funds, the limit will be 15%

Asset-Backed Securities — Sponsors of asset-backed securities must be treated as guarantors subject to the 10% diversification limit, unless the board (or its delegate) determines that the fund is not relying on the sponsor to determine quality or liquidity

Compliance date for diversification amendments: April 14, 2016

58

NEXT STEPS

Retail or Institutional? Assess to what extent existing shareholder base is retail or

institutional Determine whether to reorganize existing retail and institutional

share classes into separate funds or create new funds Review charter documents to assess if shareholder approval is

needed for various actions Consider establishing government funds, or amending

investment policies of existing funds to qualify as government funds

59

NEXT STEPS Revise Rule 2a-7 procedures to reflect floating NAV (if applicable),

fees and gates, new disclosure requirements, new stress testing requirements, and new diversification standards

Revise prospectus and SAI, Form N-MFP, and website disclosures For floating NAV funds, update systems to enable routine

transactions at floating NAV For retail funds, develop procedures to ensure that funds are sold

only to natural persons Develop procedures for filing Form N-CR on occurrence of triggering

event

60

INTERPRETIVE ISSUES

Retail funds Beneficial ownership: are “direct or indirect pecuniary

interest” and “sole or shared voting or investment power” alternative tests?

Can a managed account invest in retail funds? Does a forfeiture feature in a defined contribution plan

disqualify the plan from investing in a retail fund? Is an estate of a natural person a natural person?

61

INTERPRETIVE ISSUES

Retail funds, continued Can a retail fund permit a non-natural person (such

as a sponsor) to own shares of the fund to facilitate operations (e.g., for seed money, merger or liquidation costs)?

In a master-feeder structure, if all the feeders qualify as retail funds, does the master also qualify?

Can a retail fund invest in another retail fund without being considered a non-natural person shareholder of the acquired fund?

62

INTERPRETIVE ISSUES

Retail funds, continued Outside the reorganization context, can a retail fund

involuntarily redeem non-eligible investors without giving 60 days’ notice?

Can insurance company separate accounts qualify as intermediaries or omnibus account holders?

Fees/Gates May an intermediary net purchases and redemptions

for purposes of applying a liquidity fee?

63

INTERPRETIVE ISSUES

Government funds May qualification be tested only upon each acquisition

of securities? Performance record If an existing fund with retail and institutional share

classes reorganizes into separate retail and floating NAV funds, may both funds continue to show performance of original fund?

64

Broker-Dealer Regulatory UpdateMichael S. Caccese, Partner, K&L GatesKenneth G. Juster, Partner, K&L Gates

AGENDA

High Frequency Trading Crowd Funding / Online Platforms Marketing and Placement Agents Broker-Dealer “Status” Issues for Private

Funds

67

High Frequency Trading

68

WHAT IS HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING?

Use of low-latency tools, such as co-located servers, and direct data feeds from exchanges

Aggressive short-term trading using computer algorithms Typically used by proprietary trading firms and hedge

funds, though tools are also used by brokers to execute customer trades

Difference of opinion: Michael Lewis (“Flash Boys”) claims HFT disadvantages retail

investors Some industry commentators claim HFT adds liquidity to the

markets and lowers cost of execution

69

HFT: REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White is focused on equity market structure issues and HFT Developing an anti-disruptive trading rule to address

the use of aggressive, destabilizing trading strategies in vulnerable market conditions

Two proposed registration rules: Clarify status of unregistered active proprietary traders as

“dealers” under the Exchange Act Eliminate exception from FINRA membership requirements

for dealers that trade in off-exchange venues

70

REGULATION SCI

Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“SCI”) Adopted November 19, 2014 Designed to strengthen infrastructure of US securities

markets Requires SROs, clearing agencies, ATSs, plan

processors and exempt clearing agencies to establish policies and procedures to ensure systems have adequate capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability and security

71

RECENT HFT ENFORCEMENT ACTION

In re Athena Capital Research, LLC (Oct. 16, 2014) First HFT manipulation case HFT firm used algorithmic trading and rapid fire orders to “mark

the close” Large purchases or sales in last two seconds before 4:00 close

to drive closing prices higher or lower Manipulative trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the

Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Cease and desist, censure, and $1 million fine

72

Crowdfunding

CROWDFUNDING – JOBS ACT Crowdfunding generally refers to the use of the Internet and social media to

raise capital, normally from a large number of people and in relatively small amounts from each

JOBS Act – Crowdfunding is subject to SEC rulemaking SEC proposed Regulation Crowdfunding for comment in October 2013 As proposed, not available to private fund issuers

True “crowdfunding,” as contemplated by the JOBS Act is currently notpermitted until the SEC acts on regulations that were proposed last year

Because of a number of restrictions/conditions (including information requirements, maximum fundraising amounts, and various mandatory reports) that are either required by the JOBS Act or anticipated in SEC regulations, it is unclear whether true “crowdfunding” will, in fact, prove to be a popular way to raise assets

74

CROWDFUNDING LOOK-ALIKES New and creative structures for capital formation emerge

and are tested against the realities of the market

Many structures that are called “crowdfunding,” are different than the crowdfunding contemplated by the JOBS Act Rule 506(c) fundraising Community/Donation-Based Support

Ex. Kickstarter and Indiegogo

Human/Income-Contingent Capital Venture Fund Model Peer-to-Peer Lending

75

Rule 506(c) “Crowdfunding,” as the term is colloquially used, more typically refers not to

JOBS Act “Crowdfunding,” but rather to Rule 506(c) private placements or, even more broadly, to any online investment platform

Rule 506(c) allows for the public solicitation of investors to raise an unlimited amount of capital so long as all of the investors are accredited. There are few of the (anticipated) complexities associated with true Crowdfunding and most of the advantages

Many of the existing online securities crowdfunding sources (e.g., EquityNet, CircleUp) are broker-dealers offering securities through a Crowdfunding look-alike website that offers a capital formation tool based on Rule 506(c), but are not “Crowdfunding” as contemplated by the JOBS Act

From a securities law standpoint, many so-called “crowdfunding” sites are merely a modern wrapper around an otherwise traditional Rule 506(b) offering

76

ONLINE PLATFORMS – LENDING Though sometimes labeled “crowdfunding,” these sites (including popular

peer-to-peer lending sites such as Lending Club and Prosper) are not true Crowdfunding sites

With variations, these sites offer investors an opportunity to choose among loan proposals from individuals and commercial entities

With some platforms, investors select the loans, or fractions thereof, in which they want to invest

With other platforms, a sponsor selects the actual loans

Investors are typically issued a payment dependent note

Some platforms aggregate loans via an SPV structure such that an investor actually receives an SPV interest

77

ONLINE PLATFORMS – REAL ESTATE Typically, these sites offer an opportunity to invest, on a debt

or equity basis, in a real estate project with a third-party developer In some cases, platforms have tried to acquire property directly, and hire

a developer afterward, but this approach can be very expensive, is far more complicated to implement, and shifts enormous risks to the platform sponsor

Real estate platforms typically follow either a debt or equity model In the equity model, the sponsor creates an SPV to invest in a project

(or, more typically, an SPV related to the project) In a debt model, similar to lending platforms, the sponsor issues a class

of its (or an affiliate’s) debt or preferred stock securities to investors, and uses the proceeds to invest directly in the project (or project SPV)

78

ONLINE PLATFORMS – VENTURE CAPITAL Based on no-action letters issued to AngelList and

FundingClub in March 2013. Platforms offer accredited investors investments in private

funds, each of which invests in a single private company (or other asset(s))

Investment adviser (or exempt reporting advisor) affiliated with the platform provides investment advice and administrative services to the investment vehicle

Transaction-based compensation not permitted, but investment adviser can receive incentive compensation (i.e., carried interest in private funds) without broker registration

79

ONLINE PLATFORMS – REGULATORY ISSUES Online platforms often create complicated U.S. federal and state securities

law issues, primarily around whether the sponsor of the site is acting as an investment adviser and/or broker-dealer This analysis will typically turn on whether the platform is offering or selling

securities, the nature of the sponsor’s services, and the manner of compensation With many business models, a site sponsor will be deemed to be an investment

adviser and/or a broker-dealer Another common issue is whether the SPV or (with sponsors that issue debt) the

sponsor itself is an investment company

Apart from the SEC, online platforms may invest in asset classes that are themselves highly regulated: Lending platforms are subject to a variety of state and local lending laws Real estate platforms are subject to state and local real estate licensing and similar

laws

80

Marketing and Placement Agents

81

MARKETING AND PLACEMENT AGENTS

David Blass, formerly Chief Counsel, SEC Division of Trading and Markets (April 5, 2013) Raising awareness of broker-dealer status issues in the private

fund industry Two primary issues:

Dedicated sales force may require broker-dealer registration Transaction-based compensation arrangements may trigger broker-

dealer registration requirements Use of issuer’s exemption for private fund sales

Failure to ensure fund marketers are appropriately registered can create liability for sponsor/advisor Ranieri Partners case – “aiding and abetting” liability

82

THE “ISSUER EXEMPTION” – RULE 3A4-1 Creates a safe harbor from federal broker-dealer registration

requirements. The safe harbor is available only to “associated persons” of an

issuer (as defined by Rule 3a4-1) who participate in the issuer’s sale of its securities who can not: Be “statutorily disqualified” (e.g., barred, suspended from membership,

participation, or association with a member of any SRO, including FINRA) during the time of participating in the sale;

Receive transaction-based compensation for his or her participation in the sale of the issuer’s securities; and

Be an “associated person” of a broker-dealer Employees of adviser to a mutual fund are included in Rule 3a4-1

definition of “associated person of an issuer” BUT, 1940 Act restrictions generally prevent use of safe harbor for

distribution of mutual funds

83

ISSUER’S EXEMPTION

If a fund’s associated persons meet all three factors, they must then comply with one of the following three alternatives: Limit solicitation to sophisticated purchasers such as various

financial institutions and intermediaries or limit sales to securities exempt section 3(a)(7), 3(a)(9) or 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933

Ensure that the employee who engages in sales activity performs “substantial” duties other than selling securities (“substantial” is measured in terms of work time and volume of work performed in activities unrelated to selling interests in the fund)

Limit sales to purely passive activities such as written solicitation

84

ISSUER’S EXEMPTION

David Blass: “As you all know, Rule 3a4-1 generally is not used by private fund advisers.”

The safe harbor would generally not be available to full-time, internal marketing employees, including those associated with funds in continuous distribution.

The difficulty of remaining within the safe harbor limits its usefulness and can create uncertainty.

Open dialogue with industry on where the “broker-dealer” line should be drawn, but momentum has slowed after Blass’ departure from the SEC (June 2014)

85

SELLING FUNDS THROUGH DUAL EMPLOYEES

Wearing “broker hat” vs. “adviser hat” No bright line test General guidelines:

Broker: Marketing securities, participating in execution of trades, receipt of

transaction-based compensation Adviser

Marketing strategies, providing investment advice, receipt of asset-based compensation, no reference to broker-dealer or naming of particular securities in marketing materials

86

DUAL EMPLOYEE COMPLIANCE ISSUES

Outside business activity notifications Dual employment agreement Disclose correct firm on

Letterhead/business cards General marketing materials Presentations, pitch books, sales literature, etc.

All securities activities through BD – no selling away Compliance and supervision by both entities

87

IMPACTS OF MARKETING THROUGH BROKER-DEALER FINRA advertising rules apply Potential filing requirement (retail materials) No model, hypothetical, backtested performance Limitations on related performance (3(c)(7) only) Materials subject to FINRA inspection Content standards of Rule 2210

No superlatives, may not predict or project performance “Fair and balanced” standard

88

Broker-Dealer “Status” Issues

89

BROKER-DEALER STATUS ISSUES

SEC remains focused on broker-dealer status issues in the private fund industry

Following Dodd-Frank, numerous private fund advisers became RIAs

As they are now being examined by the SEC, they are being questioned about their business practices

Routine exam questions regarding fee structures

90

BROKER DEALER STATUS ISSUES

Focus is on various fees received by fund sponsors or their affiliates: Compensation of sales people linked to successful investments Acquisition or disposition fees “Investment banking” fees “Transaction structuring” fees “Success” fees

Some of these fees may raise “broker” registration obligations

91

RECENT SEC RELIEF

M&A Brokers No-Action Letter (Feb. 4, 2014) Provides an exemption from “broker” registration for an M&A

broker, if certain conditions are met: No ability to bind parties to a transaction No provision of financing for a transaction No custody, control, possession or handling of funds/securities No public offering, restricted securities, no shell companies Consent required if representing both sides of transaction May not form a group of buyers Buyer will “control” and “actively operate” the target company No passive buyers Not barred or suspended from associating with a broker-dealer

92

M&A BROKERS LETTER

Two key indicia that buyer is not passive: “Control”

Power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of a company

Control will be presumed to exist if, upon completion of the transaction, the buyer or group of buyers has 25% or more ownership

“Actively Operate” May be demonstrated by the power to elect executive officers and approve

the annual budget or by service as an executive or other executive manager, among other things.

93

Questions?

94

European Issues

C. Todd Gibson, Partner, K&L Gates

97

UCITS & AIFMD UCITS

UCITS V Ireland Consultation on Effectiveness of Fund Management

Companies ESMA Guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS Issues Money Market Fund Reform Update

AIFMD Summary and Scope Impact on US Managers Key Implementation Issues and Questions

98

UCITS

8/28/2014 - Directive published in the EU Official Journal 9/17/2014 – Directive came into force 3/18/2016 – Deadline for transposition by

Member States into national law

98

UCITS V - Timeline

UCITS

Remuneration AIFMD-like rules that apply to senior management, risk takers

and control functions Will remuneration rules to extend to a delegate investment

manager? Proportionality applies ESMA to issue additional details in Level 2 guidelines regarding

applicability to staff

UCITS V

99

UCITS

Remuneration (continued) Variable Remuneration - Shares

50% paid in UCITS shares (or certain other), with vesting periods Does not apply if management of UCITS is less than 50% of the

total assets managed by the management company Variable Remuneration – Bonuses

40% deferral over minimum of 3 years (or recommended holding period of UCITS concerned)

Deferral higher where variable compensation is a large component of total compensation

UCITS V

100

UCITS

Remuneration (continued) Disclosure of remuneration policy Annual report information regarding amounts

paid, split into fixed and variable components

UCITS V

101

UCITS

Depositary Functions Single depositary Increased liability

Liable for any assets held “in custody” Verification of ownership/recordkeeping Overarching duty of care for losses suffered by UCITS resulting from

depositary’s negligence or intentional failure to properly fulfill its obligations

UCITS V

102

UCITS

Depositary Functions New rules relating to delegation to sub-custodians –

depositary cannot discharge or transfer liability onto sub-custodian with respect to the UCITS

Limited exceptions relating to delegations in emerging markets, subject to conditions

UCITS V

103

UCITS

Irish consultation on the effectiveness of management company supervision of delegates (CP86) – comments due 12/12 Covers variety of topics Delegate supervision Board composition/managerial functions

Consultation on Effectiveness

104

UCITS

Delegate Supervision Draft version of “good practices” for directors Streamlining of managerial functions

Combining financial-related, new “distribution” function Modifications to Irish residency requirement for directors

2 directors in Ireland at least 110 days per year Can substitute for one of these directors a person (i) who can engage with

the Central Bank within 24 hours, (ii) “unconnected” to the depositary or a service provider, and (iii) is “competent” in one of the managerial functions


105

UCITS

Board composition rationale Document as part of authorization process

how board composition as a whole enables it to fulfill its responsibilities Role of lawyers on Irish fund boards


106

UCITS

Issued 2013 and currently effective, with subsequent updates, ESMA issued guidance and related Q&A’s on various issues impacting ETFs and UCITS funds

ETFs & Financial Indices Guidance regarding names and disclosures applicable to UCITS

ETFs Guidance regarding use of a financial index and composition of

the index Commodity indices cannot relate to single commodity (including

sub-categories, such as crude oil, gasoline, heating oil)

ESMA Guidance – ETFs and UCITS Issues

107

UCITS

Collateral Management for OTC and EPM techniques (including repurchase agreements) Guidance regarding liquidity, issuer credit quality, valuation, etc. Collateral diversification

“..sufficiently diversified in terms of country, markets, and issuers.” Issuer diversification – collateral basket has a maximum exposure to a given

issuer of 20% of the fund’s net asset value (multiple collateral pools are aggregated)

Per ESMA Q&A (Question 6(g)): For government bonds, applies to issuer, and not issue

ESMA Guidance – ETFs and UCITS Issues

108

UCITS

Currently Two “Tracks” European Council (Italian Presidency)

Debating numerous options (redemption fees, gates, prohibition of sponsor support, capital requirements)

European Parliament Reviewing proposals from ECON committee Modifies the European Commission text (no VNAV or capital buffer),

carve-outs for retail and government funds

Debate continues with final proposals not expected until late 2015

Money Market Fund Reform Update

109

AIFMD

What is the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive?

What is an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF)? Broadly defined, but exempts UCITS, securitization special purpose

entities; “family office” vehicles; joint ventures; funds restricted to only having one investor (excluding master funds with one feeder); separately managed accounts (no “pooled return”)

Includes US investment companies, Cayman hedge funds, etc.

Summary & Scope

110

AIFMD

Applies to (but different treatment): EU-established manager of AIF (registered office in a

Member State) Non-EU AIFMs actively marketing (directly or

indirectly) AIF into the EU Does not apply, in most jurisdictions, to a “reverse

solicitation” (investment made at the sole initiation of the investor

Summary & Scope

111

AIFMD

Who is the “investor”? Nominee accounts, discretionary SMAs,

investors that are funds, etc.

Summary & Scope

112

AIFMD

How are US managers impacted? Cross-border marketing of AIFs to EU

investors Private offerings of US RICs Delegation (e.g., sub-advisory) relationships

Impact on US Managers

113

AIFMD

Cross-border marketing permitted: Manager complies with Art. 22 (Annual Report), Art. 23

(Disclosure to Investors) and Art. 24 (Reporting to Regulator) Comply with local national private placement regime (NPPR) in

EU Member State where fund marketed Any local application procedure has been followed in each EU

Member State where fund is to be marketed


114

AIFMD

Delegation Arrangements/Multiple Advisers Who is the AIFM?

Only one per fund Can be internal or external Excludes firms providing advice only Must engage in either portfolio management or risk management or both;

can delegate subject to limits Responsible to fund and investors for portfolio management and risk

management (and cannot delegate such responsibility) AIFM must have the expertise and resources to review delegate “on an

ongoing basis”


115

AIFMD

Delegation Arrangements (continued) AIFMD Remuneration Rules Similar to UCITS V Rules Although AIFMD may not apply to a US delegate,

expectation that they will extend to delegate to some extent via “appropriate contractual arrangements”


116

AIFMD

Identify what currently unknown information is critical to your organization’s business plan – e.g., which EU Member States might you want to market into, and therefore, which local versions of the AIFMD are most mission critical for you: take steps to monitor how the AIFMD is being implemented in the relevant jurisdictions

Heighten awareness of AIFMD internally If an AIF is proposed to be actively marketed into the EU:

Perform a gap analysis in respect of the AIF’s annual report and offering materials for additional disclosures required for EU marketing; and

Review EU regulator disclosure form and registration process; assess information required and additional processes (e.g., AIFMD version of a US Form PF)

Determine any restrictions or prohibitions on sales to EU investors and communicate to distribution partners

Final Thoughts

117

Registered Fund Board of Directors and Fund Governance IssuesMark P. Goshko, Partner, K&L Gates LLPClair E. Pagnano, Partner, K&L Gates LLP

OVERVIEW Organization of the SEC SEC Examinations Section 12(b) and Rule 12b-1 SEC Enforcement Update on Section 36(b) Litigation Money Market Fund Reform and Rule 2a-7 SEC Rulemakings

3

ORGANIZATION OF THE SEC SEC consists of 5 divisions and 23 offices, with approximately 4,100

total employees Division of Investment Management

Employs approximately 200 staff Regulates the asset management industry, including investment companies

and registered investment advisers Division of Enforcement

Nearly 1,300 employees For the 12-month period ended 9/30/14, brought 755 enforcement actions

and obtained sanctions totaling $4.16 billion Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE)

Comprised of approximately 450 examiners, accountants and lawyers Administers the National Exam Program that oversees investment

companies and investment advisers

Requested budget for 2015 is $1.7 billion (2014 - $1.46 billion; 2013 - $1.27 billion)

4

SWEEP EXAMS BY THE SEC

Fixed-income funds Sweep is in response to expected volatility in the bond market

due to potentially rising interest rates SEC is also focused on disclosure about the impact from rising

interest rates and board oversight of bond funds Sweep is expected to cover 25 to 30 firms

Focus of the sweep exam Policies and procedures related to liquidity risks and illiquid

assets Results of stress tests of portfolio liquidity Board oversight of liquidity management

5


Liquid alternative funds Focused on those funds with non-traditional asset classes and/or

non-traditional strategies Risks posed by valuation, liquidity, leverage and disclosure SEC expects to examine 15 to 20 complexes

Focus of the sweep exam Use of derivatives (portfolio holdings and trade blotters) Risk management regarding alternative funds and holdings Pre-trade/post-trade compliance results Liquidity (assessment of fund’s liquidity; stress testing) Valuation

6


Cybersecurity OCIE is conducting exams of 50 broker-dealers and investment

advisers to assess their cybersecurity preparedness Focus on the following areas:

Cybersecurity governance Identification and assessment of cybersecurity risks Protection of networks and information Risks associated with remote customer access and funds transfer requests Risks associated with vendors and other third parties Detection of unauthorized activity Prior experiences with certain cybersecurity threats

7

SWEEP EXAMS BY THE SEC “Distribution in guise”

Begun in 2013, sweep focused on mutual fund distribution fees SEC staff recently indicated that it completed the sweep Several related enforcement actions are expected (“guidance through enforcement” like

Morgan Keegan for valuation)

SEC assessed the payment amounts, services provided and the “interaction of the service agreements”

Focus of the sweep exam Underlying notion that payments ostensibly for sub-transfer agency,

recordkeeping or other services were effectively for distribution SEC looked for link between payments and distribution not previously

disclosed and potential Rule 12b-1 violations Who is getting paid? For what? Particular focus on direct or indirect connections to a preferred fund

arrangement, marketing, promotion or access to investors

8

1940 ACT RESTRICTIONS ON FUND PAYMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTION

Section 12(b) of the 1940 Act Prohibits a mutual fund from acting as

distributor of its own shares Rule 12(b)-1 under the 1940 Act Mutual fund will not be deemed a distributor if it

makes payments for distribution in accordance with the rule Paid pursuant to a written plan adopted in accordance

with the rule Annual, in-person board approval

9


Adviser payments for distribution and Rule 12b-1 Fund is not permitted to indirectly act as distributor

Violation of Section 12(b) and Rule 12b-1(a)(2) Adviser is not prohibited from paying for distribution (sound business

practice) and may pay for distribution using revenue from advisory fee Creates a potential inference that the mutual fund is making an indirect

use of fund assets to pay for distribution Advisory fee payments as “distribution in guise”

Board has responsibility during 15(c) process to assess reasonableness of advisory fee and contract in light of Gartenberg factors Advisers generally do not discuss their revenue sharing and distribution

arrangements during the 15(c) process Adviser’s position is that any revenue sharing and distribution payments are

separate and distinct from the advisory fee

10


SEC guidance on “indirect use of fund assets”1

An adviser is permitted to use its legitimate resources to pay for distribution

SEC in “distribution in guise” sweep raised issues similar to those outlined in its 1998 “Fund Supermarkets” Letter2

There should not be allowances in an advisory fee for distribution payments Federated fees for shareholder services and recordkeeping are charged

separately from 12b-1 fees and are not paid pursuant to 12b-1 plans

If the fee/advisory contract does not result in a breach of fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act, adviser may use revenue from the advisory fee to pay for distribution (even if such amounts exceed profits on the contract)3

1 Bearing of Distribution Expenses by Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release 11414 (Oct. 28, 1980)2 Investment Company Institute, Letter from Douglas Scheit (pub. avail. Oct. 30, 1998)3 Payment of Asset-Based Sales Loads by Registered Open-End Management Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 16431, at note 125 (Jun. 13, 1988)

11

TRENDS IN SEC ENFORCEMENT

Market structure and exchanges Gatekeepers: attorneys, accountants and

compliance professionals and their roles in the securities industry

Insider trading and material non-public information Fair Valuation

12

RECENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS Insider Trading and Material Non-Public Information (MNPI)

SEC v. Rengan Rajaratnam Manager actively tried to cultivate new insider sources for Galleon Managment and

played key role in what the SEC has dubbed “the most expansive insider trading scheme ever perpetrated”

Defendant is brother of primary defendant in the headliner Galleon insider trading case Manager was fined more than $840,000 and agreed to a 5-year industry ban

SEC v. Lawson, Lawson & Cerullo Software company founders, relying on MNPI regarding the company’s prospective

merger, sold company shares in advance of share price decrease Sanctions totaled nearly $5.8 million in disgorgement and matching penalties

SEC v. CITIC Securities & China Shenghai Investment Management Accounts managed by the two firms were frozen by the SEC as a result of suspicious

activity preceding a 50% spike in shares of Nexen, Inc. Enforcement action capped a series of related SEC proceedings recouping nearly $30

million in gains made due to insider trading

13

RECENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS Fair Valuation

In late 2012, the SEC began proceedings against former Morgan Keegan directors of Morgan Keegan’s registered funds Board oversight of valuation procedures Delegation of valuation responsibilities Valuation methodologies Insufficient valuation materials for Board review

Morgan Keegan directors ultimately reached settlement with the SEC

Industry responses to Morgan Keegan No formal SEC guidance Third-party assessment of fund valuation policies and procedures Back-testing Increased Board review of valuation issues

14

RECENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS Money market fund manager charged with fraud and Rule 2a-7 violations

Advisory firm and portfolio manager misled fund’s board and failed to comply with Rule 2a-7’s risk-limiting provisions

The manager misled the board about the credit risk posed by securities in the portfolio, the fund’s exposure to Eurozone credit crisis of 2011 and the fund’s diversification

Enforcement action resulted when fund’s performance and gross yield were identified as “consistently different” from the rest of the market

Adviser sanctioned for improper cross trading SEC alleged that the firm improperly allocated the savings resulting from these

affiliated transactions and denied certain clients approximately $6.2 million in savings

In its order, the SEC noted that cross trading can pose substantial risks due to the adviser’s inherent conflict of interest in obtaining best execution for both the buying and the selling client

15

UPDATE ON SECTION 36(B) LITIGATION Two approaches by plaintiffs bringing Section 36(b)

excessive fee cases Portion of fee retained by advisers hiring sub-advisers is

disproportionate based on services provided by/responsibilities of the adviser

Fee charged for same strategy by managers acting in subadvisory capacity materially lower than those charged when serving as primary adviser

Complaints also contain allegations regarding board’s ability to devote necessary attention to negotiating advisory fees

Multiple firms have been targeted by excessive fee lawsuits, including BlackRock, J.P. Morgan and SEI

16

MONEY MARKET FUND REFORM AND RULE 2A-7

In July 2014, SEC adopted final money market fund rules Rules would impose a floating NAV on institutional prime money market

funds Boards will have discretion to impose temporary liquidity fees or

redemption gates in times of financial stress Rules also amended Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act Compliance dates for the various requirements are staggered, but most

will be effective by October 2016 Industry Responses

Industry groups (ICI, SIFMA) working on FAQs from the SEC Restructuring existing funds or creating new products, including private

money market funds seeking to operate under old regime Issues with technology solutions and service providers

17

SEC RULEMAKINGS The Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law on July 21,

2010 Rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act

Required 398 total rulemakings As of October 2014, 220 of those rulemakings have been finalized 115 rulemaking deadlines have been missed 95 rulemakings still to be proposed

Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) enacted in April 2012 Rulemakings under the JOBS Act

Elimination of ban on general solicitation and general advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A offerings

Amendments to Regulation D and Rule 156 under the Securities Act Proposed rules regarding Regulation A and crowdfunding

18

QUESTIONS?

SEC Asset Management Unit and Exam Program Areas of Focus for 2015Michael S. Caccese, Partner, K&L GatesLuke T. Cadigan, Partner, K&L GatesNicholas S. Hodge, Partner, K&L Gates

22

AGENDA

Trends in the SEC’s Exam program Office of Compliance Inspections and

Examinations (OCIE) priorities for 2015 Anticipating and preparing for SEC exams SEC Enforcement trends Asset Management Unit cases and initiatives Insider trading, municipal securities,

administrative proceedings, and whistleblowers

23

TRENDS IN THE OCIE EXAM PROGRAM Continued use of technology and data analytics National Exam Analytics Tool (NEAT) In FY 2014, Risk Analysis Examination Group analyzed 1.3

billion transactions from 350 firms Impact of Risk Assessment and Surveillance Group

Performs data analytics to identify firms and practices that present the greatest risks to investors

Virtually all exams based on identification of risk factors at respective firms

New hedge fund and private equity registrants still getting attention Establishment of Private Funds Unit

Implementation of National Examination Manual Rigorous pre-exam due diligence and aggressive examinations

24

OCIE BY THE NUMBERS – IA/IC EXAMS

Responsible for exams of nearly 11,000 investment advisers and 800 investment companies

Collectively, assets under management of nearly $55 trillion

Fewer than 460 staff members conducting IA/IC exams (SEC seeking 250 more)

Identification of higher-risk firms for examination OCIE conducted approximately 1,200 formal

examinations of IA/ICs in 2014 (1,850 overall) Represents 30% of assets under management and 10% of all

IA/ICs

25

ENHANCED COORDINATION WITH ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT OCIE’s Risk Assessment & Surveillance Unit working to assess

risk with Enforcement’s Office of Market Intelligence OCIE reaching out to Enforcement more frequently and

informally when Exam staff sees potential issues Enforcement increasingly accompanying OCIE on exams Enforcement taking all referrals seriously

In FY 2014, OCIE made more than 200 referrals, resulting in more than $300 million in financial sanctions

Investment Management’s Risk and Examination Office also accompanying OCIE on exams to obtain information to help guide policymaking

OCIE’S GROWING ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Regional offices, including OCIE staff, overseen by growing number of former prosecutors Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago

Boston OCIE now headed by former head of Boston’s Asset Management Unit

Other former Enforcement staff now in OCIE

26

NATIONAL EXAM PROGRAM (NEP)-WIDE INITIATIVES Fraud Detection and Prevention Corporate Governance, Conflicts of Interest, and

Enterprise Risk Management Technology Dual Registrants Relatively New Laws and Regulation Securities Act Rule 506(c) Municipal advisor rules Security-based swaps dealers

Retirement Vehicles and Rollovers27

OCIE CYBERSECURITY INITIATIVE SEC Cybersecurity Roundtable (March 26, 2014) NEP Risk Alert (April 15, 2014) Sweep of investment advisers and broker-dealers Focus on Cybersecurity governance Identification and assessment of cybersecurity risks Protection of networks and information Risks associated with vendors and other third parties Detection of unauthorized activity Experiences with cybersecurity threats

Risk Alert or other report of findings expected28

IA/IC PROGRAM CORE RISKS

Safety of Assets and Custody• Asset verification

Marketing/Performance Conflicts of Interest Inherent in Certain

Investment Adviser Business Models

29

IA/IC PROGRAM – ISSUES AND INITIATIVES Never-Before Examined Advisers Wrap Fee Programs Monitoring, conflicts of interest, best execution,

trading away from the sponsor, disclosures Quantitative Trading Models Presence Exams Newly registered advisers to private funds Deficiencies in allocation of expenses, hidden fees,

marketing, and valuation

30

IA/IC PROGRAM – ISSUES AND INITIATIVES

Payments for Distribution in Guise Fixed Income Investment Companies January 2014 IM Guidance Update suggests stress

tests involving liquidity and various other factors Disclosures regarding effects of rise in interest rates

• Exposure by Retail Investors to Lack of Liquidity

31

IA/IC PROGRAM – POLICY TOPICS

Money Market Funds Securities Lending Arrangements “Alternative” Investment Companies 2014 sweep focused on Valuation Liquidity Leverage Role of fund boards in oversight and compliance

32

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A key area for SEC risk analysis “Conflicts of interest, when not eliminated

or properly mitigated, are a leading indicator of significant regulatory issues for individual firms, and sometimes even systematic risk for the entire financial system.”

-- Carlo di Florio, Director, OCIE, Speech to National Society of Compliance Professionals, October 22, 2012

33

IA/IC PROGRAM – 2015 PRIORITIES Elderly and Retirement Issues

Sales and marketing practices

Supervision of Information Technology Tracking Individuals with Disciplinary Histories Dual Registrants Enhanced Use of Form PF Data JOBS Act Role of Proxy Advisory Firms

June 2014 IM guidance about investment advisers’ responsibilities in voting client proxies and retaining proxy advisory firms

Risk Management Liquidity risk management, stress testing, use of derivatives, and

transition planning

34

ANTICIPATING SEC EXAMS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY SEC’s exam and enforcement programs are more

risk-based than ever You can predict the likelihood of your next exam by

looking at the risk areas identified by the SEC and determining whether they apply to you Consider a mock audit

SEC investigations at other firms into practices you engage in should prompt a review at your firm

35

ANTICIPATING SEC AREAS OF FOCUS Firms should consider:

Prior SEC exams, including deficiencies raised and actions taken Relevant topics identified by the SEC staff in speeches or releases

(e.g., IM Guidance Updates, Risk Alerts) Enforcement actions and investigations Analysis of new statutory/regulatory requirements that impact the

adviser’s business Any serious compliance issues that arose at the adviser or in the

industry in the past year Analysis of compliance implications of any new businesses,

discontinued businesses, and change in advisory operations during the past year

36

37

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT FY 2013 STATISTICS

686 enforcement actions $3.4 billion in penalties and disgorgement 140 cases against IA/ICs (20% of total) 121 cases against B/Ds (18% of total) 44 insider trading cases (6% of total)

38

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENTFY 2014 STATISTICS 755 enforcement actions (20 more than

FY2011 record) $4.16 billion in penalties and disgorgement Number and nature of cases reflect the

SEC’s “Broken Windows” approach

39

THE SEC’S “BROKEN WINDOWS” APPROACH“Minor violations . . . can feed bigger ones, and . . . can foster a culture where laws are increasingly treated as toothless guidelines. And so, I believe it is important to pursue even the smallest infractions.”- SEC Chair Mary Jo White, “Broken Windows” Speech, October 9, 2013

40

“Broken Windows” approach Lower thresholds for intent and disgorgement/harm

Continued reliance on data analytics Continued focus on individuals Requiring admissions of guilt in specific cases Professed intent to take more cases to trial Increased use of administrative proceedings Increased urgency in wake of Gabelli holding (5-year

statute of limitations starts with fraud not discovery) Whistleblower program

Increased coordination with criminal authorities

ENFORCEMENT TRENDS

41

ENFORCEMENT FOCUS AREAS Investment advisers Hedge funds Private equity funds Mutual funds

Financial statement and accounting fraud Insider trading Microcap fraud Market structure violations Deficient gatekeepers

42

SPECIALIZED UNITS AND TASK FORCESEnforcement Specialized Units Asset Management Market Abuse Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Complex Financial Instruments Municipal Securities and Public Pension

Task Forces Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force Center for Risk and Quantitative Analytics (CRQA) Microcap Fraud Task Force

43

ASSET MANAGEMENT UNIT Largest of specialized units with more than seventy-five staff

members More than 20 staff in each of New York and DC Generally 3-4 staff in each other office

Staff experts include hedge fund portfolio manager, private equity analyst, and individuals with due diligence, mutual fund operations, and trading experience

Focus divided equally among 1) private funds, 2) registered investment companies, and 3) separately managed accounts

Works closely with OCIE and the Divisions of Investment Management and Economic and Risk Analysis in devising analytics and methodologies for targeting specific practices and firms

44

ASSET MANAGEMENT UNITCONTINUED AREAS OF FOCUS

Valuation issues (board oversight, side pockets, liquidity representations, marking the close, etc.)

Conflicts of interest (related party transactions, transactions between co-managed funds, cherry-picking, front-running, etc.)

Performance advertising (claims of back-tested or model performance, GIPS compliance, etc.)

Fee arrangements (board oversight, disguised distribution fees, adviser fees, wrap fees, etc.)

44

45

Custody Rule (failure to conduct surprise exams and to ensure quarterly account statements from custodian, etc.)

Private equity firms (valuation, conflicts of interest, fees, zombie funds, performance claims, etc.)

Small advisers (compliance programs, Ponzi schemes)

Sales practices (are products appropriate to investors?)

ASSET MANAGEMENT UNITCONTINUED AREAS OF FOCUS

46

VARIOUS ASSET MANAGEMENT UNIT INITIATIVES Compliance Program Initiative

Failure to correct compliance violations cited as deficiencies by staff in prior exams

Mutual fund fee initiative Board oversight of fees and valuation determinations

Preferential redemption initiative Investors permitted to redeem on preferential terms

Aberrational performance initiative Use of analytics to identify returns too good to be true at hedge

funds and mutual funds

Problem adviser initiative (“Operation ADV”) Scrutiny of misrepresentations as to education, experience,

strategy, and performance

47

NOTABLE CASES Cross-Trades: Firm charged with engaging in cross-

trades that failed to allocate cost savings equally between buying and selling clients (Western Asset Management)

Performance: SEC charged money manager with making false and misleading claims about the firm's past performance in newsletters and through Twitter. (Mark Grimaldi/Navigator Money Management)

Conflicts of Interest: SEC charged firm and its CEO used undisclosed revenue sharing agreements to pay themselves kickbacks and failed to disclose conflicts of interest (Total Wealth Management)

48

INSIDER TRADING Market Abuse Unit using computer-based tools to sift

through data to find aberrational trading and relationships

Significant collaboration with USAO SAC Capital, Galleon, Expert Network cases

SEC setbacks in attempting to prove insider trading Bauer: 7th Circuit reversed decision finding insider trading in

connection with redemption of mutual funds Cuban: SEC lost jury trial premised on supposed agreement not

to trade on information Obus: SEC lost jury trial against hedge fund manager accused of

selling on merger tip Moshayedi: SEC lost jury trial against former CEO who sold

before disclosure that customer would scale back sales

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES First financial penalty against a municipal issuer (The Greater

Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District) First emergency action to halt a fraudulent municipal bond offering

(City of Harvey, Illinois) First case charging a firm with violating the pay-to-play rules for

investment advisors (TL Ventures Inc.) First case under the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure

Cooperation initiative (Kings Canyon Joint Unified School District) First case charging violations of Municipal Securities Rulemaking

Board Rule G-15(f), which establishes the “minimum denomination,” brought against a number of dealers related to Puerto Rico junk bond sales

First time the SEC has charged a municipal official under a federal statute that provides for “control person” liability (Gary Burtka)

49

50

INCREASED USE OFSEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS This past year, SEC brought 43% of its litigated cases as APs SEC has indicated it will make greater use of its advantages in this

forum, where it has a higher winning percentage No right to jury Trial to SEC administrative law judge with first appeal to SEC de

novo No discovery generally

Exceptions: SEC investigative file, statements of witnesses, subpoenas for documents

Limited expert disclosures, but ALJ may order more No dispositive motions (with minor exceptions) All relevant evidence (including hearsay) is admitted Trial within 4-5 months; decision within 10 months Use of SEC administrative process has been subject to

constitutional challenges and public criticism

51

SEC WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

SEC enforcement action with sanctions over $1 million SEC must pay 10-30% of recovery

To any eligible whistleblower Who has voluntarily provided the SEC with Original information about a possible violation of the federal

securities laws

SEC received 3,238 tips in FY13, nearly 9 each day Nearly 90% of whistleblower tips supposedly first made

to company

SEC Whistleblower Program 3,238 formal whistleblower tips received in FY2013 Since Office of Whistleblower opened by SEC in 2011, received more than 6,500 whistleblower tips Examples Corporate disclosures and financials – 17.2% Offering fraud – 17.1% Manipulation – 16.2% Insider trading – 6.1%

404 tips from 55 countries outside US E.g., United Kingdom (66 tips), Canada (62 tips), and China (52 tips)

52

SEC WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

August 21, 2012: SEC issues $50,000 award to an unnamed tipster who helped uncover a fraud

June 12, 2013: SEC issues awards to three whistleblower of 5% of funds collected in connection with alleged sham hedge fund

September 30, 2013: SEC awards over $14 million to whistleblower whose tip led to recovery of investor funds

October 30, 2013: SEC awards to whistleblower 30% of funds collected in connection with action arising from ongoing fraudulent scheme

53

SEC WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM June 3, 2014: SEC awards $875,000 to be split

between two whistleblowers June 16, 2014: SEC brings action against

hedge fund adviser for retaliation against whistleblower

August 29, 2014: SEC awards $300,000 to compliance/internal audit professional

September 2014: SEC issues $30 million award

54

QUESTIONS?

CFTC and Derivative Developments

Michael W. McGrath, Partner, K&L Gates LLPSkanthan Vivekananda, Partner, K&L Gates LLP

58

AGENDA

CPOs and CTAs

Form 40 Amendments

Margin for Uncleared Swaps

ISDA Resolution Stay Protocol

EMIR

59

CPOS AND CTAS – HOW DID WE GET HERE? The Dodd-Frank Act and related rulemaking added

most swaps to the definition of “commodity interest”

2012: the CFTC significantly narrowed the exclusion for CPOs of Registered Funds by requiring the CPO to meet certain marketing requirements and meet one of two de minimis tests: 5% Test 100% Net Notional Test

2013: “Harmonization” rules provide a “substituted compliance” regime for most aspects of CFTC regulation (other than CPO registration)

60

CPOS AND CTAS – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Third-Party Recordkeeping: September 2014 letter permits allCPOs to use any third-party as a recordkeeper, provided: The CPO has timely access to such records

The CPO files a statement that identifies the third-party to the CFTC

CPO Delegation: October 2014 letter provides “self-executing” delegation subject to certain conditions, including: Delegation is pursuant to a legally binding document

The delegating CPO does not solicit investors for the pool or manage pool assets (with certain exceptions)

The designated CPO is registered

JOBS Act: September letter harmonizes Regulations 4.7(b) and 4.13(a)(3) with Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, but a notice filing is required

61

CPOS AND CTAS – OPEN ISSUES

CTA recordkeeping delegation

Recordkeeping rule modernization

Fund-of-funds guidance

Additional delegation guidance

62

OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL REPORTING

In 2013, the CFTC published new rules related to ownership and control reporting (Form 40 / 40S reporting for end-users)Substantive changes:

Expanded trader and account informationNew reporting obligations for DCMs and SEFsElectronic submissionObligation to update

Compliance Dates:February / March of 2015 for FCMs / clearing membersFebruary 2016 for reporting end-users

Reporting: FCMs / CFTC web portal / FIA Techthe CPO has timely access to such recordsthe CPO files a statement identify the third-party to the CFTC

CPO Delegation: October 2014 letter provides “self-executing” delegation subject to certain conditions, including:

Delegation is pursuant to a legally binding documentThe delegating CPO does not solicit investors for the pool or manage pool assets (with certain exceptions)The designated CPO is registered

JOBS Act: September letter harmonizes Regulations 4.7(b) and 4.13(a)(3) with Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, but a notice filing is required

MARGIN FOR NON-CLEARED SWAPS

63

Earlier this fall, the CFTC and U.S. prudential regulators re-proposed margin, capital and segregation requirements applicable to SDs/MSPs in light of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s and the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ issuance of their 2013 final policy framework on margin requirements for uncleared derivatives and the comments received on the original proposal.

Proposals are not identical but share many similarities.

Prudential regulator rules apply to SD/MSPs regulated by them (Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the OCC, the Farm Credit Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Authority)

CFTC rules apply to other SD/MSPs. These are proposed rules. However, comment period recently expired. Perhaps final rules 1st/2nd quarter next year?

Both impose requirements on SD/MSPs to post and collect variation and initial margin for all un-cleared swaps with end users meeting certain criteria.


64

Variation Margin SD/MSP must post/collect variation margin on all uncleared swaps with “financial

end-users.” Financial end user - long list of entities including:

registered investment companies 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) funds 3a-7 and 3(c)(5)(c) funds commodity pools ERISA plans wide variety of other entiities

must post an amount sufficient to cover a change in the value of obligations under the un-cleared swaps since the last time such payment was made (the “cumulative mark-to-market amount”)

Must post/collect each business day Only cash collateral is permissible (U.S. dollars or cash in the currency in which

payment obligations under the swap are required to be settled) Minimum Transfer Amount of up to $650,000 is OK (but in calculating, you look at

cumulative amount of initial and variation margin required) Proposed compliance date: December 1, 2015


65

Initial Margin SD/MSP must post/collect initial margin on all un-cleared swaps with financial

end-users who have “material swaps exposure.” that entity and its affiliates have an average daily aggregate notional amount of non-

cleared swaps, non-cleared security based swaps, foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps with all counterparties for June, July and August of the previous calendar year that exceeds $3 billion (where such amount is calculated only for business days)

Calculation of the initial margin required can use a model based approach (based on model approved by regulators meeting certain criteria).

Alternatively, it can use a table based approach set forth in the rules. e.g., table requires initial margin of 2% of notional for interest rate swaps with 2 to 4 year

maturity Must post/collect each business day starting with the business day following the

trade date. Permissible collateral includes, among other things, cash in USD and certain

other major currencies, treasuries and certain other sovereign debt, certain agency securities, certain highly rated corporate debt, gold and equities on certain major indices . Collateral is subject to haircuts based on a table in the proposed rules.


66

Initial Margin Cont’d Minimum Transfer Amount of up to $650,000 is OK (but in calculating, you look at

cumulative amount of initial and variation margin required). A Threshold of up to $65 million is OK, but this is applied at a consolidated entity

level (i.e., across all non-cleared swaps between the SD/MSP and its affiliates and the counterparty and its affiliates). Example: SD enters into three separate swaps with three counterparties part of the same

affiliated group. If initial margin amount would otherwise be $100 million for each entity and Threshold is $65 million, SP must collect at least $235 million ($100 + $100 + $100 - $65).

All initial margin posted/collected pursuant to this mandate must be held at a tri-party custodian pursuant to an account control agreement.

Phased in compliance between December 1, 2015 to December 1, 2019 based on notional amount of un-cleared swap trading activity by financial end-user and its affiliates $4 trillion December 1, 2015 $3 trillion December 1, 2016 $2 trillion December 1, 2017 $1 trillion December 1, 2018 otherwise December 1, 2019


67

Right to Segregation of Initial Margin at a Tri-Party Custodian

CFTC rules require swap dealers/MSPs to notify counterparties of their right to require segregation of initial margin posted in connection with an unclearedswap at a tri-party custodian. Notice must provide a list of independent custodians and provide pricing information

Swap dealer must obtain confirmation from counterparty whether or not it wants to elect to segregate initial margin prior to confirming the terms of any unclearedswap. However, CFTC recently issued no action relief permitting a negative consent

procedure. If you elect to segregate initial margin in accordance with this new regime, your

control agreements must include certain additional terms. Collateral may only be released upon submission of a notice made under oath or

under penalty of perjury that the party is entitled to exercise control of the account. Funds in control account may only be invested consistent with CFTC Rule 1.25.

Don’t proposed un-cleared swap margin rules mandate that initial margin be held at a tri-party custodian? If so, what is the point of this?

RESOLUTION STAY PROTOCOL

68

Fact pattern #1:

US bank holding company files for bankruptcy. You manage a Fund that is party to a swap with its U.S. subsidiary guaranteed by the holding company parent (in ISDA parlance, the parent is a “credit support provider”).

A bankruptcy refresher

The automatic stay Ipso Facto clauses (e.g., Section 365(e) of the Bankruptcy Code) Safe harbors for derivatives (e.g., Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code)

contractual right to liquidate, terminate or accelerate a swap agreement because of a bankruptcy or insolvency event or to offset or net out any termination values shall not be stayed by other provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code].

Why? The Lehman Experience

A rush to the exits!

RESOLUTION STAY PROTOCOL

69

Orderly Resolution Regimes Systemically Important Financial Institutions Title II Of Dodd-Frank and Orderly Liquidation Authority Short Stay on termination rights Other regimes: The European Union Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive

and other regimes

Fact pattern #2: Same as Fact Pattern #1 but now the holding company is located in United

Kingdom. As in Fact Pattern #1, your counterparty is its U.S. based subsidiary. If UK BHC files for bankruptcy and is subject to a stay resolution regime, will you be able to terminate your swap with the subsidiary? Would a New York court recognize the UK’s stay resolution regime?

Resolution Stay Protocol Purpose is to achieve by contract an agreement to these stay resolution

regimes on a cross-border basis. Implications for the buy side.

KEY ELEMENTS OF EMIR

Meaning of “Derivatives” Counterparty categorisation

Financial Counterparties (“FCs”) Non-Financial Counterparties (“NFCs”) Third country entities (“TCEs”)

Clearing thresholds NFC and NFC+

70

EMIR - CLEARING

71

The clearing obligation under EMIR will apply: Between two FCs Between an FC and an NFC+ entity Between two NFC+ entities Between an FC or an NFC+ entity and a TCE (only where

the TCE would be subject to clearing obligation if it was established in the EU)

Between two TCEs if the contract has a “direct, substantial or foreseeable effect” in the EU (or where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of EMIR’s requirements)

EMIR – “RISK MITIGATION TECHNIQUES”

Uncleared OTC trades FCs and NFCs (all)

Timely confirmations Reconciliation, portfolio compression and dispute resolution

Additional requirements for FC and NFC+ counterparties Initial and variation margin Daily valuation

Effect of risk mitigation requirements on U.S. entities

72

TRADE REPORTING Timing T+1 Delegated reporting and ongoing obigations Back-loading

If outstanding on February 12, 2014: 90 days If no longer open, but outstanding on August 16, 2012: 3 years

73

Registered Alternative Products

Michael S. Caccese, Partner, K&L Gates LLPGeorge Zornada, Partner, K&L Gates LLP

76

REGISTERED ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS

RICs and Alternative Assets and Strategies Registered Funds of Hedge Funds

77

RICS AND ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS

As markets have fallen, traditional fixed income investments have produced low interest income and most markets have exhibited more volatility; investor demand has increased for "alternatives."

Registered funds have expanded the borders of traditional investments as "average" investors are comfortable with traditional mutual fund form and advisers seek alternative exposure for their clients.

78

TRADITIONAL REGISTERED FUNDS WITH ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES Mutual funds with "hedge fund" strategies

Long/short funds Multi-strategy fund of funds Multi-manager funds Event-linked funds (catastrophe bond) Event-driven funds (special situations) Managed futures

Commodities Exposure (also ETPs that are not investment companies)

MLPs (open and closed-end funds) Closed-end funds and illiquid strategies Creativity at work, but registered funds do have distinct limits - there

always will be hedge funds

79

MUTUAL FUNDS WITH "HEDGE FUND" STRATEGIES Long/short funds

purchase and short sale of equity securities With a long position, the fund purchases a stock outright; with a short position, the fund sells

a security that it does not own and must borrow to meet its settlement obligations. Asset coverage requirements, limit the amount of shorting a fund can do.

Multi-strategy fund of funds Access alternative investment strategies (e.g., convertible arbitrage, event driven (merger

arbitrage), fixed income relative value, equity market neutral, long/short equity, global macro, managed futures and emerging markets) by investing in other investment companies.

Multi-manager funds Access alternative investment strategies by hiring multiple sub-adviser to run specific sub-

strategies. Main Adviser allocates fund assets to distinct sleeves managed by separate (often

unaffiliated) sub-advisers.

80

MUTUAL FUNDS WITH "HEDGE FUND" STRATEGIES Event-linked funds (catastrophe bonds)

Return of principal and payment of interest contingent on the non-occurrence of a specified trigger event(s) that leads to economic and/or human loss, such as an earthquake of a particular magnitude or a hurricane of a specific category.

The most common type of event-linked bonds is known as “catastrophe” or “CAT” bonds. In most cases, the trigger event(s) will not be deemed to have occurred unless the event(s) happened in a

particular geographic area and was of a certain magnitude or caused a certain amount of actual or modeled loss. If the trigger event(s) occurs prior to a bond's maturity, the fund may lose all or a portion of its principal and forgo additional interest.

Liquidity of the CAT bond market is biggest challenge, although becoming much more liquid. Uncorrelated to equity or bond markets.

Event-driven funds (special situations) Invests in the securities of publicly traded companies involved in mergers, takeovers, tender offers,

leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, or similar events (“corporate reorganizations”). A variety of strategies can be employed to capitalize on the mispricing of corporate securities during

corporate reorganizations, including transactions involving common and preferred stock, debt instruments and derivative securities.

Strategies often involve the use of arbitrage, which involves taking advantage of small price differences between two otherwise equivalent assets.

Such strategies considered to be less dependent on the overall direction of stock prices.

81

MUTUAL FUNDS WITH "HEDGE FUND" STRATEGIES

Managed futures To run as a RIC, must use offshore subsidiary for commodities

futures that produce “bad income.” Utilize inherent or “economic” leverage in futures typically with

programmatic trading Asset coverage requirements. CFTC has “harmonized” requirements for such funds, which

also are commodity pools.

82

COMMODITIES EXPOSURE

Commodity RICs Frequently are the same as “managed futures” funds but focused on

commodities futures rather than financial futures. Offshore subsidiary structure. Asset coverage requirements. CFTC harmony.

■ Commodity ETPs Pool that holds only physical commodity (i.e., gold, silver, copper). Not investment company, not commodity pool. Exchange-traded issuer like a public company.

83

MLPs Registered funds must diversify assets into MLPs, related companies or exposure to such

companies through other instruments. RIC limited to 25% direct holding of MLPs. Some MLPs are not RICs but are registered investment companies that operate as “C

corporations” rather than as a RIC. MLPs are “master limited partnerships.” MLPs are generally treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. To be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, an MLP must derive at least

90% of its gross income for each taxable year from qualifying sources, including activities such as the exploration, development, mining, production, processing, refining, transportation, storage and certain marketing of mineral or natural resources.

MLPs are generally publicly traded, are regulated by the SEC and must make public filings like any publicly traded corporation.

Many MLPs operate oil, gas or petroleum facilities, or other facilities within the energy sector. Midstream MLPs may also operate ancillary businesses including marketing of energy products

and logistical services. The MLPs in which the Fund invests may also engage in owning, managing and transporting alternative energy assets, including alternative fuels such as ethanol, hydrogen and biodiesel.

84

REGISTERED FUNDS OF HEDGE FUNDS

Closed-end. Continuously offered. Not exchange listed, use tender offers. Partnership or RIC structure. Provide exposure to potentially anything investable,

anywhere. Not generally available to all investors, even if

publicly offered, based on SEC staff policy.

Special Issues for Closed-End FundsClair E. Pagnano, Partner, K&L Gates LLPTrayne S. Wheeler, Partner, K&L Gates LLP

AGENDA Closed-End Fund Basics Taking Advantage of Trading Premiums: Shelf

Offerings Managing Trading Discounts Tender Offers for Preferred Shares Distribution Rates Open Market Share Repurchases Tender Offers for Common Shares

Closed-End Fund Litigation Overview Impact of the Volcker Rule

87

CLOSED-END FUND BASICS Hybrid of a mutual fund and operating company Third-party underwritten IPOs Stable pool of assets – no redemptions – great for investing

in certain instruments (e.g., fixed income) Traded on an exchange (most often NYSE or AMEX) NAV of underlying portfolio is not anchored to market trading

price This presents challenges (discounts) and opportunities

(premiums) Most significant result of this is that the fund may trade at either

a premium or a discount to its market value Example – a fund with 10 million shares outstanding and a portfolio

worth $100 million would be expected to trade around $10/share Shares may be trading for a discount (e.g., $8) or premium (e.g.,

$12) to NAV

88

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TRADING PREMIUMS: SHELF OFFERINGS Permits Issuance Of Additional Shares Generally Into Existing Trading

Market Generally Employed Where Shares Are Trading at a Significant Premium General No-Action Relief Facilitates Funds Relying on General Shelf

Registration Rule Without Additional Reporting Requirements Issuer-specific No-Action Relief Permits Annual Updating under Rule 486(b) 1933 Act Rule 415

Fund Must be Reporting for At least one year Permits Delayed or Continuous Offering of Shares “At the market” offering must be on delayed Basis Need to File Shelf Registration Statement “Take Downs” Reflected in Supplements to Shelf Registration Statement

89

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TRADING PREMIUMS: SHELF OFFERINGS (CONT’D) Underwriting

Overnight Deals -- Third Party Brokers Will Underwrite – For a Price At-the-Market Offerings – Generally Use an Affiliated Broker (typically

mutual fund distributor) – Third-Party Broker Typically Used as Sales Agent Must be FINRA qualified to underwrite closed-end offerings May require amendment to FINRA membership agreement If there is no affiliated broker, a third-party broker may be used –

generally involves a more significant closing

Sales Loads Typically varies based upon amount of trading premium Section 23(b) Prohibits Issuance at Below NAV Revenue Sharing -- Some Brokers will Seek trail Payments from

Adviser in addition to load90

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TRADING PREMIUMS: SHELF OFFERINGS (CONT’D) NYSE/Other Listing

Shares sold in shelf offerings must be subject to supplemental listing application

May be done once covering all shelf shares -- not required for each take down

FINRA filings All SEC shelf filings must be made with FINRA Same-day clearance

Board Considerations Board must conclude that Benefits of Program through

additional assets outweighs possible impact on premium

91

MANAGING TRADING DISCOUNTS

Problem: Many Closed-End Funds’ Market Prices Trade at a

Discount to Net Asset Value

Consequences: Shareholder Value Diminished Attracts Activist Shareholders Seeking to Arbitrage

Discount Presents Difficulties in Attracting Underwriters for

Future Offerings

92

METHODS FOR MANAGING DISCOUNTS

Enhancing Competitive Distribution Rates Open Market Share Repurchases Tender Offers for Outstanding Common

Shares Tender Offers for Preferred Shares

93

ENHANCING DISTRIBUTION RATES Closed-End Funds Very Often Marketed and

Purchased for Income Produced Closely Monitoring Distribution Rates Relative

to Competitors is Very Important Section 19(a) Disclosures Section 19(b) Limitations 19(b) Exemptive Orders: Managed Distribution

Plans Possible Uniform Exemptive Rule

94

OPEN MARKET SHARE REPURCHASES

1940 Act Section 23(c) Permits Must be Conducted Under 1934 Act Rule10b-18

Safe Harbor Single Broker Time - Near Close of Primary Trading Price

1. Maximum Highest Bid or Last Transaction2. Special Provisions for Share Where No bids of Transactions3. Generally not applicable to CEFs

95

OPEN MARKET SHARE REPURCHASES (CONT’D) 1940 Act Section 23(c) Permits

1. Volume Maximum 25% of Average Daily Trading Volume Exception for Once Weekly Block Purchase

2. Notice of Program Repurchased Shares Generally must be Retired Governing Instruments Determine Resale or Reissuance Requires Re-Registration Affiliates of Fund May Also Make Open Market

Purchases

96

TENDER OFFERS FOR COMMON SHARES 1940 Act Section 23(c) Permits Must Comply with 1934 Act Rule 13e-4 Governing Issuer

Self Tenders Volume -- No Limit - Board Determines Series Tenders -- Typically Small amounts 5% - 10% One Time Tenders Amounts may be Larger Impact may be time limited

Filing of Schedule TO Dissemination Long Form Publication Mailing to Shareholders -- Most Common Short Form Publication

97

TENDER OFFERS FOR COMMON SHARES (CONT’D) Period -- Must be Open for 20 Business Days Price -- Not Prescribed -- Typically 95% to 98% of NAV

Depending on Current Discount Valuation -- Based Upon NAV at Expiration Date Amended Schedule TO Reflecting Results Must be Filed

with SEC Related Communications -- All Must be Filed Tenders By Affiliates -- Generally Subject to Same

Requirements Resale of Purchased Shares -- Must be Re-Registered

98

TENDER OFFERS FOR PREFERRED SHARES Redeem auction rate preferred shares through

tender offers Typically done in connection with refinancing

transactions (i.e., issuances of private preferred shares, debt or tender option bonds) in order to give liquidity to ARPS holders and maintain the fund’s leveraged capital structure

Conditions on tender offers: Tender offer at some percentage below par Minimum participation percentage

99

TENDER OFFER FOR PREFERRED SHARES – FACTORS BENEFITING THE FUND

Not readily quantifiable factors include: Providing ARPS shareholder an opportunity to

liquidate their shares Reducing risks associated with inaction Potential changes to Board structure Costs associated with proxy fights Litigation from preferred shareholders Risk new forms of refinancing will not be available

in the future

100

FACTORS IMPACTING TENDER OFFER PRICES FOR PREFERRED SHARES Reasons why tender offers vary by fund: Variety of leverage options available (taxable

funds have more) Degree to which portfolio can support leverage

expenses Existence of a credit facility (reducing

transactional expenses) Extent to which the offer is subscribed

101

CLOSED-END FUND LITIGATION OVERVIEW: DIRECT ACTIONSa. Direct suits relate to shareholders'

structural, financial, liquidity and voting rights

b. If numerous plaintiffs with similar or identical claims -- claim may be brought as a class action

c. Example -- disclosure actions

102

CLOSED-END FUND LITIGATION OVERVIEW: DERIVATIVE ACTIONSa. Breach of fiduciary duty owed to the fundb. Demand letter must be sent to the fund's boardc. Fund board determines whether to pursue claims

Special Committee (SC -- independent directors)

SC must be independent, unbiased and act in good faith

Differing standards of review depending on applicable law

d. Example -- Challenges to board’s decision not to reorganize closed-end fund as open-end fund

103

RISE OF AUCTION RATE PREFERRED SHARES LITIGATIONa. Demand letters on behalf of purported holders of funds’ common shares,

alleging that the funds’ investment adviser, officers and board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the redemption of the funds’ auction preferred shares at their liquidation preference.

b. Derivative actions filed (suits filed in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts)c. Standard approach

Establish Special Committee to investigate and respond to claim Stay proceeding pending Special Committee’s / Board's determination Special Committee evaluates demand If demand is rejected, Defendants move to dismiss proceeding relying on

Business Judgment Rule

d. SEC’s brief supports claims that Merrill Lynch & Co. rigged the ARPS market Failed to disclose its role in “propping up” auctions Goes against prior dismissals

104

IMPACT OF THE VOLCKER RULE ON TOBS TOB programs have been historically used to provide a supply of

short-term tax-exempt municipal bonds to funds, including municipal bond closed-end funds

The Volcker Rule exempted federally insured depository institutions and affiliates from potential proprietary trading prohibitions on municipal bonds While the exemption covers most of the municipal market, tender option

bond (TOB) programs are not exempt Upon finalization of the Volcker rule, market participants began

attempting to restructure existing TOB programs or find feasible alternative structures Volcker-compliant TOB structures began appearing over the summer,

aiding municipal market liquidity Look for additional structures to develop in the coming months

105

DOL, ERISA and Tax Developments

Mark J. Duggan, Partner, K&L Gates (with thanks to William P. Wade)Joel D. Almquist, Partner, K&L Gates

ERISA FAQs

109

QUESTION 1

Why do we need to worry about ERISA and the Department of Labor, given that our firm already is SEC- and CFTC registered?Aren’t two regulators enough?!

ANSWER 1

ERISA and other Federal laws co-exist

ERISA preempts most State laws, except banking, insurance, securities laws

110

QUESTION 2

My firm usually adopts a gross negligence exculpation and indemnification standard in our fund contracts, but I understand that ERISA has a “prudence” concept. How is that different from gross negligence?

111

ANSWER 2

ERISA disallows exculpation or indemnity for breach of fiduciary duty

“Prudent expert” standard – process is important

Can a “prudent expert” be negligent (or grossly negligent)?

Liability for trade errors (i.e. WAMCo)

112

QUESTION 3

I heard that an adviser needs insurance or a bond to manage ERISA money. Our firm has $XX million in D&O/E&O coverage. Is that sufficient?

113

ANSWER 3

ERISA bond intended to protect the plan

Note: bond required for each plan in a plan-asset fund

D&O/E&O insurance protects the investment manager

114

QUESTION 4

Does our firm really need to be a “QPAM” to manage ERISA money, either legally or practically?

115

ANSWER 4

Legally, no – practically, expected

Broad prohibited transaction restrictions require exemptions

QPAM is broad exemption for “party-in-interest” transactions – requires status and other conditions; note exceptions

116

ANSWER 4 (CONTINUED)

Other possible exemptions ERISA 408(b)(2) “Services” Exemption Allows services to plans by parties in interest; no

more than “reasonable compensation” permitted 408(b)(2) disclosure requirements

117

ANSWER 4 (CONTINUED)

Other possible exemptions “Service Provider” Exemption – 408(b)(17) Allows transactions with a service provider to a plan Unlike QPAM, does not require SEC-registered

adviser status Plan must pay no more, and receive no less, than

“adequate consideration” Some market participants resist use

118

QUESTION 5

ERISA has a 25% test for private funds that allow ERISA plans to invest (i.e., if ERISA plans hold less than 25% of any class of fund interests, ERISA does not apply). How does that work in a master-feeder or a fund of funds structure?

119

ANSWER 5 – THE “25% TEST”

Private Fund assets are “plan assets” if:1) benefit plan investors2) hold 25% or more of3) any class of equity interests in the Fund4) not counting interests held by the Fund

manager or its affiliates for their own account.

120

ANSWER 5 –“BENEFIT PLAN INVESTORS”

Defined in ERISA § 3(42):

ERISA Plans

Code Section 4975 Plans (IRAs, Keogh plans)

Other “plan asset” funds

121

ANSWER 5 –25% TEST FORMULA

Numerator (“benefit plan investors”): ERISA plan $

plus Code 4975 plan $plus “Plan-asset” fund $

Denominator:Assets in class/fund $

less fund manager and “affiliate” $

= 25% or more? (per class)

122

ANSWER 5 – SPECIAL RULES (FOFS, MASTER-FEEDER)

25% Test at Two Levels:

Level 1 Test Level 2 Test

Fund-of-funds Underlying Fund

Feeder Fund Master Fund

123

ANSWER 5 – SPECIAL RULES (CONTINED)

Level 1 Test for FOF/Feeder –Standard “plan asset” computation

Level 2 Test for Underlying/Master –What part of investment of FOF/Feeder, if any, goes into the numerator? If Level 1 Test less than 25% – zero If Level 1 Test 25% or more – that portion of the investment by the

FOF/Feeder that is attributable to “Benefit Plan Investors”

124

ANSWER 5 – EXAMPLE 1 (FUND OF FUNDS)

BENEFIT PLANINVESTORS

NON-BENEFIT PLANINVESTORS

$3,000 $2,000

FUND OF FUNDS

$5,000

UNDERLYINGFUND

“Plan Assets”?

$5,000

NON-BPIINVESTORSYes

“Plan Assets”? Yes

125

ANSWER 5 – EXAMPLE 2 (FUND OF FUNDS)

BENEFIT PLANINVESTORS

NON-BENEFIT PLANINVESTORS

$3,000 $2,000

FUND OF FUNDS

$5,000

UNDERLYINGFUND

“Plan Assets”?

$10,000

NON-BPIINVESTORSYes

“Plan Assets”? No

126

QUESTION 6

What exactly are Taft-Hartley plans and are they the same as ERISA plans?

127

ANSWER 6

TH plans = collectively-bargained employee benefit plans

Jointly administered by labor-management trustees

TH plans are subject to ERISA

128

QUESTION 7

We have a fund that has a lot of IRA money, but no ERISA plans. We have another fund that has only state and local government retirement plans. In either case, do we need to worry about ERISA?

129

ANSWER 7

IRAs not subject to ERISA, but Code Section 4975

Government plans not subject to ERISA, but subject to state laws that may adopt ERISA principles

130

TAX DEVELOPMENTS

132

TAX DEVELOPMENTS

RIC Issues Proposed changes to regulations for purposes of RIC

asset diversification test Changes to Treas. Reg. § 1.851-5 to clarify the controlled

group rules under section 851(c) and add a new example to illustrate the application of the controlled group rules with respect to RIC investment in MLPs

133

TAX DEVELOPMENTS

Rev. Proc. 2014-45 : wash sale rules will not apply to purchases and redemptions of floating-NAV money market fund shares

Proposed regulations: simplified tax accounting rules for shareholders in floating-NAV money market fund

Proposed regulations: floating-NAV money market funds exempt from information-reporting requirements

133

Money Market Fund Tax Issues

TAX DEVELOPMENTS

Increased ability to recover taxes withheld by EU countries

Results in over-distribution of creditable foreign taxes to RIC shareholders in prior years

No good means of correcting prior year tax reporting

RIC Foreign Tax Reclaims

134

TAX DEVELOPMENTS

Rev. Rul. 2014-18 affirms that a stock option or stock-settled SAR granted to a manager of an offshore fund is not a nonqualified deferred compensation plan subject to taxation under Section 457A

Hedge Fund Manager Stock Options

135

Tax Developments

Cayman Islands currently has an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with each of the United States and the United Kingdom. Financial account reporting to begin in 2015 under US-Cayman IGA.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) introduces a standard of automatic account information exchange between 45 countries

In October 2014, the Cayman Islands joined the OECD-sponsored Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement and made a commitment to implement the new common reporting standard on automatic exchange of information with various countries by 2018. This means that there will be more IGAs in coming years, and more reporting obligations.

FATCA / GATCA

136

Financial Industry Developments€¦ · Data destruction policy (Regulation S-P; Massachusetts;...

Documents

Transcript of Financial Industry Developments€¦ · Data destruction policy (Regulation S-P; Massachusetts;...