Today the SEC adopted new Rule 13h-1 which requires certain large traders to provide certain information regarding their trading activities to the SEC through a New Form 13H.  A gross overview of the new reporting requirement are provided below.

Who is required to file Form 13H?

All “large traders” must file Form 13H.

A “large trader” is defined as a person whose transactions in exchange-listed securities equal or exceed two million shares or $20 million during any calendar day, or 20 million shares or $200 million during any calendar month.

The Form 13H is expected to look substantially similar to the Proposed Form 13H.

Large Trader Identification Number (LTID)

Each large trader which filed Form 13H will be given a LTID. The large trader will be required to provide their broker with the LTID so the broker can track all transactions attributable to the large trader and report such transactions to the SEC.

Large Trader Recordkeeping & Compliance Requirements

Broker-dealers with large trader clients are required to maintain certain records with respect to the transactions of their large trader clients. Such broker-dealers will be required to have large trader transaction data available the day after transactions are effected.

Effective Date

The effective date of new SEC Rule 13h-1 will be 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. Large traders will have 60 days from the effective date of the new rule to file Form 13H with the SEC.

We will be able to provide more background on the rule as adopted shortly.

The final rule is likely to be similar to the Proposed Rule 13h-1.

The SEC release is reprinted below and can be found here.

****

SEC Adopts Large Trader Reporting Regime

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2011-154

Washington, D.C., July 26, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to adopt a new rule establishing large trader reporting requirements to enhance the agency’s ability to identify large market participants, collect information on their trading, and analyze their trading activity.

The new rule requires large traders to identify themselves to the SEC, which will then assign each trader a unique identification number. Large traders will provide this number to their broker-dealers, who will be required to maintain transaction records for each large trader and report that information to the SEC upon request.

“May 6 dramatically demonstrated the need to enhance the SEC’s ability to quickly and accurately analyze market events. The large trader reporting rule will significantly bolster our ability to oversee the U.S. securities markets in a time when trades can be transacted in milliseconds or faster,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro. “This new rule will enable us to promptly and efficiently identify significant market participants and collect data on their trading activity so that we can reconstruct market events, conduct investigations, and bring enforcement actions as appropriate.”

The new rule has two primary components:

First, it requires large traders to register with the Commission through a new form, Form 13H.

Second, it imposes recordkeeping, reporting, and limited monitoring requirements on certain registered broker-dealers through whom large traders execute their transactions.

The new rule will be effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a hedge fund law firm which provides legal advice to both large and start-up fund managers.  Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345; Karl Cole-Frieman can be reached at 415-352-2300.

Currently managers with a place of business in New York are not required to register as investment advisers at the state level with the New York Department of State.  Until the Dodd-Frank Act was passed last year, these managers also were exempt from registration with the SEC because of the old Section 203(b)(3) exemption.  After the Dodd-Frank Act repealed the 203(b)(3) exemption, it was unclear how certain managers (like those managers with a place of business in New York) would be regulated.  Recently the SEC passed final hedge fund registration regulations which, among other things, clarifies how certain mid-sized hedge fund managers will be regulated.  The SEC also recently released a FAQ on how the mid-sized advisers.  The import of the Dodd-Frank Act and the new regulations means that certain New York hedge fund managers will be required to register as investment advisers with the SEC.

Mid-Sized Adviser Overview

A mid-sized adviser is generally an investment adviser with between $25M and $100M of AUM.  Mid-sized advisers are not allowed to register with the SEC unless the mid-sized adviser is located in New York state or Wyoming, in which case they will be required to register with the SEC.  Those mid-sized advisers who are currently registered with the SEC (under the applicable regulations effective prior to the Dodd-Frank Act) will be required to “switch” to state registration by June 28, 2012.  Any mid-sized adviser starting their business after July 21, 2011 will be required to register with the state securities commission or with the SEC if they are in New York or Wyoming.  More technical guidance on accomplishing the “switch” from SEC to state registration is expected to be provided by the SEC and various state regulators in the coming months.

Overview of IA Registration Requirement for New York Managers

Based on the new federal regulations, managers with a principal place of business in New York will be subject to registration/exemption as follows:

Manager provides advice to hedge funds only –> has AUM of between $25M and $150M –> no registration with SEC or state (but will be an Exempt Reporting Adviser required to submit a truncated Form ADV by March 30,2012)

Manager provides advice to hedge funds only –> has AUM of over $150M –> registration with SEC required

Manager provides advice to hedge funds and separate accounts –> has AUM of at least $25M –> registration with SEC required

Managers should note that if they are initially commencing operations they will need to follow the new regulations immediately.

Next Steps for New York Managers

New York based managers who fall within the Mid-Sized category and will need to start making preparations with respect to registering as an investment adviser with the SEC.  The deadline for registration with the SEC will be March 30, 2012.

The SEC FAQ on Mid-Sized Advisers is reprinted in full below and can be found here.

****

Division of Investment Management:

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Mid-Sized Advisers

What is a “mid-sized adviser”?

A “mid-sized adviser” is an investment adviser that has between $25 million and $100 million of assets under management.

Are mid-sized advisers required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission?

After July 21, 2011, a mid-sized adviser must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it:

i. is not required to be registered as an adviser with the state securities authority in the state where it maintains its principal office and place of business; or

ii. is not subject to examination as an adviser by the state where it maintains its principal office and place of business.

A mid-sized adviser that does not meet either one of these two requirements is prohibited from registering as an adviser with the Commission after July 21, 2011, but will have to register with the state securities authorities. There are a few exceptions to the general prohibition from SEC registration in rule 203A-2, such as for certain multi-state investment advisers and pension consultants. In addition, a mid-sized adviser that is required to register with the SEC, may elect to not register if it can rely on an exemption from registration, such as those for certain advisers to private funds.

In which states would a mid-sized adviser not be “subject to examination” by the state securities authority?

New York or Wyoming.

A mid-sized adviser with its principal office and place of business in either of those states is not “subject to examination” by the state securities authority and would have to register with the SEC. A mid-sized adviser with its principal office and place of business in any other state is “subject to examination.” This information will be updated promptly upon notification by a state securities authority of any change to examination status.

How does a mid-sized adviser determine if it is “required to be registered” in the state where it maintains its principal office and place of business?

A mid-sized adviser should consult the investment adviser laws or the state securities authority for that state to determine if it is required to register as an investment adviser in that state.

When is a mid-sized adviser that is no longer eligible for Commission registration required to switch to state registration?

A mid-sized adviser registered with the Commission as of July 21, 2011 must remain registered with the Commission until January 1, 2012 (unless an exemption from Commission registration is available). Each adviser registered with the Commission on January 1, 2012 must file an amendment to its Form ADV no later than March 30, 2012, which for most advisers will be their annual updating amendment. A mid-sized adviser that is no longer eligible for Commission registration will need to be registered with the state securities authorities by June 28, 2012, and must withdraw its Commission registration by filing Form ADV-W, indicating it is filing a “partial withdrawal,” no later than that date.

The adopting release amending Form ADV, dated June 22, 2011 (the “Adopting Release”) can be found at:http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/ia-3221.pdf .

Amended Form ADV can be found at:http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/ia-3221-appd.pdf .

Amended Form ADV instructions can be found at:http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/ia-3221-appa.pdf andhttp://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/ia-3221-appb.pdf .

****

On July 12, 2011, United States Senator Carl Levin (D – Michigan) introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act of 2011 (the “Bill”). A prior version of the Bill was introduced in 2009. The Bill contains several provisions of interest to private fund managers, including provisions that:

• Treat foreign corporations whose management and control occur primarily in the United States as U.S. domestic corporations for income tax purposes;
• Clarify under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) when foreign financial institutions and U.S. persons must report foreign financial accounts to the IRS;
• Treat Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) payments sent offshore from the United States as taxable U.S. source income; and
• Require Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) programs for hedge funds, private equity funds, and formation agents to ensure screening of offshore clients.

The Bill also authorizes the Treasury Secretary to take special measures against foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions that impeded U.S. tax enforcement as well as imposes additional disclosure requirements on multinational corporations by requiring them to include basic information on a country-by-country basis in their filings with the SEC. Notably, the Bill does not include a controversial proposal in the 2009 bill that specifically identified 34 “Offshore Secrecy Jurisdictions,” including the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands.

Foreign Corporations Treated as Domestic Corporations

Section 103 of the Bill prevents companies that are run from the United States from claiming foreign tax status if those foreign corporations have gross assets of $50 million or more. The provisions indicate that gross assets includes “assets under management for investors, whether held directly or indirectly.” For corporations primarily holding investment assets, the management and control is treated as occurring primarily in the United States if “decisions about how to invest the assets are made in the United States.” These provisions if enacted could potentially eliminate any benefits of establishing offshore funds, which are primarily established for offshore and U.S. tax-exempt investors.

Strengthening FATCA Provisions

The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) imposes a 30% withholding tax on U.S. persons holding offshore accounts on certain “withholdable payments” to “foreign financial institutions” which do not provide information about their U.S. accounts to the Internal Revenue Service. A “withholdable payment” is generally any U.S. source income, such as interest, dividends, rents, royalties and other fixed or determinable income (“FDAP”). Non-U.S. private funds will generally qualify as foreign financial institutions (“FFI”). In order for an offshore fund to avoid withholding, it must enter into an agreement with the U.S. Treasury to identify its U.S. investors, if there are any.

Section 102 of the Bill would expand the definition of a foreign financial institution to include entities that engage in derivative transactions. Section 102 also creates presumptions of U.S. control for purposes of certain legal proceedings for entities with accounts opened at non-FATCA institutions when those entities are established by or receive assets from U.S. persons.

Treatment of Credit Default Swaps

Existing tax laws allow CDS payments to avoid taxation if sent from the United States to persons offshore, such as an offshore hedge fund or foreign bank. Section 104 of the Bill would treat CDS payments sent offshore from the United States as taxable U.S. source income.

Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Hedge Funds

Sections 203 and 204 of the Bill would impose anti-money laundering requirements on unregistered investment companies, including hedge funds and private equity funds, and formation agents. Hedge funds would be required to establish AML programs; ascertain the identity of investors, including beneficial owners of foreign entities; and submit suspicious activity reports. Agents engaged in the business of forming corporations or other legal entities would also be required to establish AML programs.

Our Thoughts

The Bill will still need to survive a vote by both the Senate and the House and ultimately be signed by the President before becoming law.  There is likely to be some time before this Bill moves forward (especially considering the current focus on the debt ceiling) which means plenty of time for the industry to lobby against this effort.  However, the bill highlights the unpopularity of the investment management industry with certain members of Congress and it is no surprise we see proposed taxing provisions- the U.S. needs more tax revenue and investment managers are an easy group to target.  We see this every couple of years when various members of Congress propose to increase the carried interest for fund managers.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out and we will provide periodic updates on the situation.

For more information about the Bill, refer to Senator Levin’s July 12, 2011 press release.  Senator Levin has also released a summary of the bill as well as his floor statement introducing the bill.

****

Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a law firm which provides advice with respect to domestic and offshore hedge fund operations.  Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345; Karl Cole-Frieman can be reached at 415-352-2300.

For your review, we have published the proposed Form PF which can be found here: Form PF.

According to an SEC proposal announcement last week, SEC registered managers will be required to file proposed Form PF with the SEC on either a quarterly or annual basis in the future.  Form PF is a multi-purpose form to be used by all types of SEC registered investment advisers – hedge fund managers, private equity fund managers, and liquidty fund managers. While the level of specificity changes with AUM (high AUM managers must disclose more information), Form PF requests much more information from fund managers than have previously been required to be provided to regulators.

This post will provide an overview of the major aspects of the Form PF as it is currently proposed.

[Please note that the form is highly dependant on precise definitions. The discussion below is general and I have not discussed some of the nuances. For example, when I discuss AUM, the discussion is necessarily general.]

****

Who is required to file Form PF?

Mangers must file Form PF if they meet the following two tests:

1. Registered or required to be registered with the SEC and
2. Provide advice to a private fund (generally a 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) fund) *

* the term private fund is defined in Form PF.

When do managers need to file Form PF?

Managers will need to file Form PF either (i) on an annual basis if they have less than $1 billion of AUMor (ii) on a quarterly basis if they have more than $1 billion of AUM.

If the manager files on an annual basis, the filing will need to be completed within 90 days of the end of the manager’s fiscal year.

If the manager files on a quarterly basis, the filing will need to be completed within 15 days of the end of the calendar quarter.

What are the sections of Form PF?

Form PF has 5 major sections. For managers filing on an annual basis, generally only Section 1 will need to be completed. For managers filing on a quarterly basis, Sections 2, 3 or 4 will need to be completed depending on the types of investment vehicles for which the manager provides investment advice.  The sections are:

• Section 1 – All Filers
• Section 2 – Hedge Fund Managers with at least $1B AUM
• Section 3 – Liquidity Fund Managers with at least $1 B AUM
• Section 4 – Private Equity Fund Managers with at least $1 B AUM
• Section 5 – Managers Applying for Hardship Exemption

More Detail on Section 1 and Section 2

Section 1

Section 1 applies to all managers who are registered with the SEC.

Section 1a

Contains more general information on the manager and its business.

Section 1b

Managers must provide the following information on the “private funds” which they manage:

• gross and net asset value
• borrowing/creditor information
• derivative positions
• investor concentration
• detailed performance information, including performance after performance fees

Section 1c

Managers must provide the following information on the “hedge funds” which they manage:

• strategy
• % of assets traded using algorithm
• counterparties/exposure
• % of equity, debt, ABS traded on and off exchange
• % of equity, debt, ABS cleared by a central clearing counterparty (CCP) and not cleared by a CCP
• % of derivatives traded on and off exchange
• % of derivatives cleared by a CCP and not cleared by a CCP
• % of repos and clearing information

Section 2

Section 2 of Form PF requires managers to provide the SEC with a surprising amount of detail with respect to the fund, the fund’s investment strategy, counterparties and investors. Below we have provided an overview of some of the different requirements.

Section 2a

Generally the following information for the manager as a whole:

• drill down of positions – equity, corporate bonds, convertible bonds, sovereign and muni bonds, loans, repos, ABS/structured products, credit derivatvies, commodities, cash
• turnover rate
• geographic breakdown of instruments

Section 2b

For each fund, the following information for such fund:

• drill down of investments
• liquidity
• positions representing 5% or more of fund’s NAV
• counterparty information
• CCP information
• reporting VaR
• how market factors effect fund’s portfolio
• secured/unsecured borrowing
• investor information – side pockets, whether manager has right to suspend withdrawals, whether there are gates, whether there is currently a suspension of withdrawals, whether the gate provision is currently enacted

Section 3 and Section 4

These sections include questions which are applicable to liqidty funds and private equity funds. They are structured similar to section 2 (a & b), but overall there is less information requested.

Other Items to Note

Form PF instructions are very specific with respect to the information that should be completed in the certain sections. In addition, there are unique items that may not apply to all firms which need to be considered. Some of these items to note with respect to the form:

• there will be issues with respect to related persons
• there will be sub-adviser issues
• managers must understand the difference between reporting for individual funds v. reporting for fund structures (i.e. master-feeder, mini-master, parallel)
• there are many new definitions (135 defined terms in the glossary – 11 pages worth!)
• special rules for managers making transitions (quarterly to annually) and final filings
• private fund identification numbers are required and can only be obtained by filing Form ADV (original or amended filing)
• filing Form PF is done electronically, signed by a managing member of the firm
• there are likely to be confusions with definitions (likely to be worked out during and after the comment period)

Initial Thoughts

I am still fully developing my thoughts on the form and should have more detailed thoughts in later posts – in the meantime, my bullet point thoughts are as follows:

• The form seems to be thoughtfully laid out.
• The amount and detail of the questions is surprising.
• Managers with many funds are going to face a large reporting burden.

****

Bart Mallon provides investment adviser registration services through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, a law firm focused on the investment management industry.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Under Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC was required to condict a study of the effectiveness of the current legal and regulatory structure for broker-dealer firms and investment advisory firms with respect to the provision of personalized investment advice to retail customers and to comment on any gaps in the legal and regulatory structure.  Essentially Congress wants to know whether retail investors really understand the difference between BDs and IAs.  This issue has been one which many in the industry have strong opinions about, particularly from the investor side and the broker-dealer side.

The following is a brief overview of the SEC study which was recently released.

SEC Recommendations

In the study, the SEC spent considerable time providing a background and overview of the regulatory regimes of both investment advisers and broker-dealers.  The study also discussed retail investors and made many references to other studies which have been conducted on this and similar issues.  Ultimately, the SEC staff was trying to determine what standards should be in place with the understanding that retail investors may have limited understanding of the regulatory structure of IAs and BDs.

Overall, the SEC’s recommendations fall into two categories:

• Uniform Fiduciary Standard – SEC staff recommended that the SEC should apply a uniform fiduciary duty with respect to both IAs and BDs when such firms provide personalized investment advice regarding securities to retail custodmers [note: the fiduciary standard does not apply to brokers when they are activng in the capcity of a broker with respect to a transaction.]
  • With respect to the uniform standard, the staff noted that the SEC should provide guidance in some form with respect to implementing this standard.  Such guidance should cover, at least, the following items: standards of conduct, duty of loyalth, principal trading, duty of care, personalized investment advice about securities, and investor education.
• Harmonization of Regulations – in general the SEC staff believes that harmonization, when it adds meaningful investor protection, would be advantageous.  Specifically, the staff discussed the following issues which potentially should have substantially similar rules/regulations for both IAs and BDs:
  • Advertising and other communications
  • Use of finders and solicitors
  • Solicitation
  • Licensing and registration of firms
  • Licensing and continuing education for representatives of BD and IA firms
  • Books and records

[Because of the complexity of the issue, the above is only a gross overview.]

Our thoughts

It seems clear that if two firms are engaged in the exact same activity with respect to retail investors (providing personalized investment advice regarding securities), then such firms should be subject to the same standards of care with respect to those activities.  However, it is also clear that implementing this change in regulatory framework will not be easy.Should be a bias toward harmonization when possible and practicle

What we found particularly interesting about the study  was the discussion about state registered investment advisers and the various rules they must adhere to – it seems funny that at the federal level we are trying to harmonize regulations, whereas the report makes clear that each states rules have completely different rules (see report starting at page 85).

Probably the most interesting thing is that the Staff recommended “that the Commission should consider requiring investment adviser representative to be subject to federal continuing education and licensing requirements.”  This means that the SEC  (or potentially a SRO) would be required to create and administer an exam (similar probably to the Series 65 exam for state registered investment adviser representatives) and continuing education (similar to the CE requirements for brokers).

The full report can be found here: Study on Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers.

****

Bart Mallon provides legal advice to both investment advisers and broker-dealers through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, an investment management law firm.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Under Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC was required to conduct a study with respect to the need for enhanced examination and enforcement resources for investment advisers.  SEC staff recently released the study which is designed to provide Congress with recommendations with respect to the findings of the study.  In general, the study found that the SEC is not currently properly equipped to appropriately handle IA examinations because of capacity issues.  The study presents a number of statistics which show that IA registrations have greatly increased while the funding for the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) has been subject to cutbacks in staff.

To strengthen the IA examination process, the SEC staff recommended that Congress take one of three different courses of action:

1. Impose user fees on SEC-registered investment advisers
2. Authorize one or more SROs to examine SEC-registered investment advisers
3. Authorize FINRA to examine dual registrants (firms registered as both IAs and BDs)

SEC Recommendations

The Study provides three different options that Congress should consider with respect to the issue of instituting the most appropriate infrastructure for IA examinations.  These options and some of the positive and negative implications are discussed below.

1.  User Fees

Congress could authorize the SEC to implement user fees for registration.  These fees would go directly to the OCIE and pay for the IA examination program.

Discussion items:

• would provide scalable resources (i.e. resources would increase or decrease in proportion to the number of registered investment advisor firms) – these resources would not be subject to the Congressional appropriations process
• may be less expensive than instituting a new SRO regime and would utilize the existing OCIE staff expertise and knowledge
• avoid all of the issues which would exist with establishing an SRO structure (inefficiencies, authority, membership, governance, and funding issues)
• supported by some parts of the IA industry

2.  Delegation to SRO or SROs

Congress could authorize the SEC to delegate examination responsibilities to FINRA or another self regulatory organization(s).

Below are some of the points both for and against delegation to an SRO or multiple SROs:

• scalable resources (i.e. funded by membership fees)
• additional rulemaking – IA firms would be subject to laws (Investment Advisers Act of 1940), regulations (SEC Rules) and member (SRO) rules
• SEC would need to oversee the SRO and subject the SRO to periodic audit/examination
• an SRO would provide for more examination of IAs – for example, FINRA and NFA have examined more BDs and CPOs/CTAs than the SEC has examined IAs
• many logistical issues involved with instituting any SRO and/or allowing FINRA to take over these responsibilities
• multiple SROs (for different types of IAs) would likely create even more logistical issues
• unclear how the SRO structure would work with state registered IAs
• potential conflict of interest if the SRO (FINRA) was the same for the buy side and the sell side

3.  Authorize FINRA to examine dual IA-BD registrants

Congress could expand FINRA’s jurisdiction to oversee those firms which are registered as both an IA and as a BD.

• only marginally helpful – only 5% of IAs are also registerd as BDs and many of these firms are the largest broker-dealer firms
• gets rid of inefficiency by having two examinations – one from FINRA on the BD side and one from the OCIE on the IA side
• risk of different interpretation of provisions of the Investment Advisers Act

Conclusion

This study simply states the obvious – the SEC does not have the resources it needs to adequately do its job.  It seems like the major conclusion has already been reached – IA firms are going to need to pay for their oversight because Congress will not pay for it.  The only question is whether managers will be making payments to the SEC (first option) or to FINRA or other SRO(s) (second two options).  Whatever Congress ultimately decides, it is likely that managers will be facing more fees in the future.

The full text can be found here: Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations

****

Bart Mallon is an attorney focused on the investment management industry and provides investment adviser registration and compliance services through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

The SEC has proposed certain new rules as well as amendments to existing rules under the Investment Advisers Act as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act. New Advisers Act Section 203(m)-1 provides an exemption from registration with the SEC to those groups who only advise one or more qualifying private funds and manages less than $150 million in private fund assets.   The proposed new rule 203(m)-1 essentially exempts smaller fund managers from SEC registration.

Managers should note, however, that they may still be required to either:

1. Register as an investment adviser pursuant to state law
2. Become a reporting adviser subject to proposed Rule 204-4

The proposed rule also provides that the exemption is available for managers who are based outside of the United States and manage funds which are domiciled in the U.S. provided that the funds have less than $150 million in assets.

The full proposed rule is reprinted below.

****

§ 275.203(m)-1 Private fund adviser exemption.

(a)  United States investment advisers.  For purposes of section 203(m) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(m)), an investment adviser with its principal office and place of business in the United States is exempt from the requirement to register under section 203 of the Act if the investment adviser:

(1) Acts solely as an investment adviser to one or more qualifying private funds; and

(2) Manages private fund assets of less than $150 million.

(b)  Non-United States investment advisers.  For purposes of section 203(m) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(m)), an investment adviser with its principal office and place of business outside of the United States is exempt from the requirement to register under section 203 of the Act if:

(1) The investment adviser has no client that is a United States person except for one or more qualifying private funds; and

(2) All assets managed by the investment adviser from a place of business in the United States are solely attributable to private fund assets, the total value of which is less than $150 million.

(c)  Calculations.  For purposes of this section, private fund assets are calculated as the total value of such assets as of the end of each calendar quarter.

(d)  Transition rule.  With respect to the calendar quarter period immediately following the calendar quarter end date that the investment adviser ceases to be exempt from registration under section 203(m) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(m)) due to having $150 million or more in private fund assets, the Commission will not assert a violation of the requirement to register under section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) by an investment adviser that was previously exempt in reliance on section 203(m) of the Act; provided that such investment adviser has complied with all applicable Commission reporting requirements.

(e)  Definitions.  For purposes of this section,

(1)  Assets under management means the regulatory assets under management as determined under Item 5.F of Form ADV (§ 279.1 of this title).

(2)  Place of business has the same meaning as in § 275.222-1(a) of this title.

(3)  Principal office and place of business of an investment adviser means the executive office of the investment adviser from which the officers, partners, or managers of the investment adviser direct, control, and coordinate the activities of the investment adviser.

(4)  Private fund assets means the investment adviser’s assets under management attributable to a qualifying private fund.

(5)  Qualifying private fund means any private fund that is not registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C 80a-8) and has not elected to be treated as a business development company pursuant to section 54 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-53).

(6)  Related person has the meaning set forth in § 275.204-2(d)(7) of this title.

(7)  United States has the meaning set forth in § 230.902(l) of this title.

(8)  United States person means any person that is a “U.S. person” as defined in § 230.902(k) of this title, except that any discretionary account or similar account that is held for the benefit of a United States person by a dealer or other professional fiduciary is a United States person if the dealer or professional fiduciary is a related person of the investment adviser relying on this section and is not organized, incorporated, or (if an individual) resident in the United States.

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. is a hedge fund attorney and works with a variety of managers to hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

The SEC has proposed certain new rules as well as amendments to existing rules under the Investment Advisers Act as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act. New Advisers Act Section 203(l) provides an exemption from registration with the SEC to those groups who only advise “venture capital funds,” without regard to the number of such funds advised by the adviser or the size of such funds.  The following proposed new rule 203(l)-1 essentially creates a definition of “venture capital fund” for the purposes of the new section.  The proposed rule also provides a grandfathering provision for certain presently existing venture capital funds.

For the purposes of Section 203(l)-1, the term “venture capital fund” will generally mean any private fund that:

1. Represents it is a venture capital funds;
2. Invests in only equity securities of a portfolio company and 80% of such securities must have been acquired directly from the portfolio company;
3. Has a management company which provides guidance to the portfolio company regarding management and operations of the portfolio company or the fund must control the portfolio company;
4. Uses less than 15% leverage which may only be short term; and
5. Provides fund investors with no withdrawal rights except in extraordinary circumstances.

The full proposed rule is reprinted below.

****

§ 275.203(l)-1 Venture capital fund defined.

(a) Venture capital fund defined. For purposes of section 203(l) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(l)), a venture capital fund is any private fund that:

(1) Represents to investors and potential investors that it is a venture capital fund;

(2) Owns solely:

(i) Equity securities issued by one or more qualifying portfolio companies, and at least 80 percent of the equity securities of each qualifying portfolio company owned by the fund was acquired directly from the qualifying portfolio company; and

(ii) Cash and cash equivalents, as defined in § 270.2a51-1(b)(7)(i), and U.S. Treasuries with a remaining maturity of 60 days or less;

(3) With respect to each qualifying portfolio company, either directly or indirectly through each investment adviser not registered under the Act in reliance on section 203(l) thereof:

(i) Has an arrangement whereby the fund or the investment adviser offers to provide, and if accepted, does so provide, significant guidance and counsel concerning the management, operations or business objectives and policies of the qualifying portfolio company; or

(ii) Controls the qualifying portfolio company;

(4) Does not borrow, issue debt obligations, provide guarantees or otherwise incur leverage, in excess of 15 percent of the private fund’s aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital, and any such borrowing, indebtedness, guarantee or leverage is for a non-renewable term of no longer than 120 calendar days;

(5) Only issues securities the terms of which do not provide a holder with any right, except in extraordinary circumstances, to withdraw, redeem or require the repurchase of such securities but may entitle holders to receive distributions made to all holders pro rata; and

(6) Is not registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8), and has not elected to be treated as a business development company pursuant to section 54 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-53).

(b) Certain pre-existing venture capital funds. For purposes of section 203(l) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(l)) and in addition to any venture capital fund as set forth in paragraph (a), a venture capital fund also includes any private fund that:

(1) Has represented to investors and potential investors at the time of the offering of the private fund’s securities that it is a venture capital fund;

(2) Prior to December 31, 2010, has sold securities to one or more investors that are not related persons, as defined in § 275.204-2(d)(7), of any investment adviser of the private fund; and

(3) Does not sell any securities to (including accepting any committed capital from) any person after July 21, 2011.

(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section,

(1) Committed capital means any commitment pursuant to which a person is obligated to acquire an interest in, or make capital contributions to, the private fund.

(2) Equity securities has the same meaning as in section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(11)) and § 240.3a11-1 of this chapter.

(3) Publicly traded means, with respect to a company, being subject to the reporting requirements under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), or having a security listed or traded on any exchange or organized market operating in a foreign jurisdiction.

(4) Qualifying portfolio company means any company that:

(i) At the time of any investment by the private fund, is not publicly traded and does not control, is not controlled by or under common control with another company, directly or indirectly, that is publicly traded;

(ii) Does not borrow or issue debt obligations, directly or indirectly, in connection with the private fund’s investment in such company;

(iii) Does not redeem, exchange or repurchase any securities of the company, or distribute to pre-existing security holders cash or other company assets, directly or indirectly, in connection with the private fund’s investment in such company; and

(iv) Is not an investment company, a private fund, an issuer that would be an investment company but for the exemption provided by § 270.3a-7, or a commodity pool.

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. is a hedge fund attorney and works with a variety of managers to hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

The SEC has proposed certain new rules as well as amendments to existing rules under the Investment Advisers Act as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act.  The following proposed new rule 202(a)(30), among other things, defines the terms “client” and “investor” for the purposes of new Section 202(a)(30) of the Advisers Act which requires “foreign private advisers” to register with the SEC.

New section 202(a)(30) of the Advisers Act defines “foreign private adviser” as an investment adviser that

• has no place of business in the United States,
• has fewer than 15 clients in the United States and investors in the United States in private funds advised by the adviser, and
• less than $25 million in aggregate assets under management from such clients and investors.

For the purposes of Section 202(a)(30)-1, a single “client” generally means:

• a natural person, family members of the same household and accounts for such persons
• an entity and not the “owners” of an entity (two entities with exactly the same ownership can, together, be counted as a single client)

Other rules with respect to the “client” definition:

• an “owner” will be deemed to be a client separate from an entity if advisory services are provided to the owner separately from the entity
• managers to a hedge fund or other private fund do not necessarily need to count the individual investors in the fund as a client
• a fund entity will be a client of the manager of the fund entity

For the purposes of Section 202(a)(30)-1, the term “investor” will generally mean a “beneficial owner” (if the fund is a 3(c)(1) fund) or a “qualified purchaser” (if the fund is a 3(c)(7) fund).  With respect to any “client” or “investor,” the term “in the United States” generally means any person who is a deemed to be a “U.S. person” as it is defined in Rule 902(k) of Regulation S under the Securities Act of 1933 (which is premised on residence in the United States, regardless of any temporary presence outside the United States).

The full proposed rule is reprinted below.

****

§ 275.202(a)(30)-1 Foreign private advisers.

(a) Client. You may deem the following to be a single client for purposes of section 202(a)(30) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(30)):

(1) A natural person, and:

(i) Any minor child of the natural person;

(ii) Any relative, spouse, or relative of the spouse of the natural person who has the same principal residence;

(iii) All accounts of which the natural person and/or the persons referred to in this paragraph (a)(1) are the only primary beneficiaries; and

(iv) All trusts of which the natural person and/or the persons referred to in this paragraph (a)(1) are the only primary beneficiaries;

(2)

(i) A corporation, general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, trust (other than a trust referred to in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section), or other legal organization (any of which are referred to hereinafter as a “legal organization”) to which you provide investment advice based on its investment objectives rather than the individual investment objectives of its shareholders, partners, limited partners, members, or beneficiaries (any of which are referred to hereinafter as an “owner”); and

(ii) Two or more legal organizations referred to in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section that have identical owners.

(b) Special rules regarding clients. For purposes of this section:

(1) You must count an owner as a client if you provide investment advisory services to the owner separate and apart from the investment advisory services you provide to the legal organization, provided, however, that the determination that an owner is a client will not affect the applicability of this section with regard to any other owner;

(2) You are not required to count an owner as a client solely because you, on behalf of the legal organization, offer, promote, or sell interests in the legal organization to the owner, or report periodically to the owners as a group solely with respect to the performance of or plans for the legal organization’s assets or similar matters;

(3) A limited partnership or limited liability company is a client of any general partner, managing member or other person acting as investment adviser to the partnership or limited liability company; and

(4) You are not required to count a private fund as a client if you count any investor, as that term is defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, in that private fund as an investor in the United States in that private fund.

Note to paragraphs (a) and (b): These paragraphs are a safe harbor and are not intended to specify the exclusive method for determining who may be deemed a single client for purposes of section 202(a)(30) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(30)).

(c) Definitions. For purposes of section 202(a)(30) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(30)),

(1) Investor means any person that would be included in determining the number of beneficial owners of the outstanding securities of a private fund under section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(1)), or whether the outstanding securities of a private fund are owned exclusively by qualified purchasers under section 3(c)(7) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(7)), except that any of the following persons is also an investor:

(A) Any beneficial owner of the private fund that pursuant to § 270.3c-5 of this title would not be included in the above determinations under section 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(1), (7)); and

(B) Any beneficial owner of any outstanding short-term paper, as defined in section 2(a)(38) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(38)), issued by the private fund.

Note to paragraph (c)(1): You may treat as a single investor any person that is an investor in two or more private funds you advise.

(2) In the United States means with respect to:

(i) Any client or investor, any person that is a “U.S. person” as defined in § 230.902(k) of this title, except that any discretionary account or similar account that is held for the benefit of a person in the United States by a dealer or other professional fiduciary is in the United States if the dealer or professional fiduciary is a related person of the investment adviser relying on this section and is not organized, incorporated, or (if an individual) resident in the United States.

Note to paragraph (c)(2)(i): A person that is in the United States may be treated as not being in the United States if such person was not in the United States at the time of becoming a client or, in the case of an investor in a private fund, at the time the investor acquires the securities issued by the fund.

(ii) Any place of business, in the United States, as that term is defined in § 230.902(l) of this title; and

(iii) The public, in the United States, as that term is defined in § 230.902(l) of this title.

(3) Place of business has the same meaning as in § 275.222-1(a) of this title.

(4) Assets under management means the regulatory assets under management as determined under Item 5.F of Form ADV (§ 279.1 of this title).

(d) Holding out. If you are relying on this section, you shall not be deemed to be holding yourself out generally to the public in the United States as an investment adviser, within the meaning of section 202(a)(30) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(30)), solely because you participate in a non-public offering in the United States of securities issued by a private fund under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a).

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. is a hedge fund attorney and providers legal services to hedge fund managers through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

The SEC has proposed certain new rules as well as amendments to existing rules under the Investment Advisers Act as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act.  The following proposed new rule 203A-5 provides that (i) SEC registered investment advisers must report their AUM to the SEC by August 20, 2011 and (ii) if such advisers are at that time below the threshold for SEC registration, the adviser must withdraw from SEC registration by October 19, 2011 (and generally be registered with the state in which the adviser’s maintains its principle office and place of business).

The full proposed revised rule is reprinted below.

****

§ 275.203A-5 Transition rules.

(a) Every investment adviser registered with the Commission on July 21, 2011 shall file an other-than-annual amendment to Form ADV (17 CFR 279.1) no later than August 20, 2011 and shall determine its assets under management based on the current market value of the assets as determined within 30 days prior to the date of filing the Form ADV.

(b) If an investment adviser registered with the Commission on July 21, 2011 would be prohibited from registering with the Commission under section 203A(a)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a)(2)), and is not otherwise exempted by § 275.203A-2 from such prohibition, such investment adviser shall withdraw from registration with the Commission by filing Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) no later than October 19, 2011. During this period while an investment adviser is registered with both the Commission and one or more state securities authorities, the Act and applicable State law will apply to the investment adviser’s advisory activities.

(c) If, prior to the effective date of the withdrawal from registration of an investment adviser on Form ADV-W, the Commission has instituted a proceeding pursuant to section 203(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(e)) to suspend or revoke registration, or pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(h)) to impose terms or conditions upon withdrawal, the withdrawal from registration shall not become effective except at such time and upon such terms and conditions as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

****

Bart Mallon, Esq. is a hedge fund lawyer and providers legal services to hedge fund managers through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.