The Capital Commitment

Proskauer on Private Equity Litigation

SEC Enforcers Continue to Focus on Undisclosed Fees

In a series of enforcement cases over the past few months, the SEC has continued to bring actions focused on undisclosed fees charged to clients. Many of these cases have charged firms with fraud and other violations based on fees that were not adequately disclosed. While some attention has focused on retail wealth managers, institutional advisers to private funds have attracted scrutiny for undisclosed fees, leading to the following enforcement actions:

  • In August of 2019, the SEC charged a private venture capital fund adviser, Frost Management Company, LLC, with fraud and breach of fiduciary duties based on over $14 million in undisclosed incubator fees to start-up companies in which their fund clients invested. The complaint alleges that Frost offered incubation services to the start-ups in which it invested, and that these incubation services were provided through an affiliated entity. However, the SEC alleged that the fees paid to the affiliate, which were supposed to be used for “operational support,” were in fact used to fund the principal’s personal expenses. Furthermore, the SEC alleged that, contrary to representations to investors, the fees that its portfolio companies were paying to the affiliate were not below market rate. The case is currently ongoing, and the SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
  • Also in August of 2019, the SEC settled charges against MVP Manager LLC based on allegations regarding undisclosed brokerage commissions for acquisitions of pre-IPO shares. MVP’s clients were private funds that invested in the securities of pre-IPO venture-backed companies. The order alleged that MVP personnel arranged to receive an undisclosed brokerage commission on the sale of pre-IPO securities to MVP’s client funds on three separate occasions. The order further alleged that this undisclosed commission created a conflict of interest, as MVP and its personnel had an economic incentive to cause the private funds to purchase the securities. MVP agreed to violations of the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, and repaid $170,000 worth of undisclosed fees along with an $80,000 penalty.
  • Earlier in July of 2019, the SEC settled another conflicts of interest case against the principal of Genesis Capital LLC based on undisclosed fees. The order alleged that Genesis failed to disclose certain conflicts of interest that resulted from investments in, and fees paid to, companies that were affiliates of the adviser. The settlement involved violations of the antifraud provisions of the Adviser’s Act, disgorgement, and a $75,000 civil penalty.
  • In September 2019, the SEC brought an action against a fund-of-funds manager for an undisclosed fee sharing agreement. The order alleged that the manager’s principal had arranged a separate fee-sharing arrangement with the manager of one of the underlying fund investments, but did not disclose the agreement to the fund-of-funds investors. This undisclosed fee arrangement resulted in an conflict of interest as to fund investors, and a settlement involving the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act.

Retail wealth managers have also faced scrutiny, often in connection with more complex alternative investments. For instance:

  • An undisclosed 7% commission charge for alternative investments where an alternative share class (without embedded commissions) was available;
  • An undisclosed 5% commission that an adviser received when his clients invested in certain promissory notes;
  • Approximately $254,000 in undisclosed fees that were generated in exchange for recommending investments in certain private real estate funds; and
  • A revenue sharing agreement leading to undisclosed conflicts in recommending mutual fund share class investments that resulted in over $100 million being paid to the adviser.

From the SEC’s perspective, fund advisers are fiduciaries to their clients including the funds they advise and, in the context of that relationship, any ambiguities in fee disclosure are likely to be examined closely and create risk. Given the SEC’s continuing focus in the area, all advisors should focus on all fees, in whatever form, from all sources and ensure that they are adequately disclosed to investors and clients.

SEC Releases FY 2019 Enforcement Results: Increases in Investment Adviser Actions and Maintained Focus on Individual Accountability

Yesterday the SEC announced its enforcement results for FY 2019, accompanied by a report from the Co-Directors of its Division of Enforcement.  While the total number of actions increased slightly from 2018, the percentage of cases involving investment advisers or investment companies increased more dramatically, growing from 22% in 2018 to 36% in 2019, with a significant portion of the increase attributable to the SEC’s Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative. Investment advisory issues accounted for 191 standalone actions in the past year. Continue Reading

SEC Announces the Formation of Asset Management Advisory Committee

As a further indication of the SEC’s focus on the asset management industry, on November 1, 2019 the Commission formally established an Asset Management Advisory Committee. This follows the SEC’s recent announcement of its intent to establish the committee. Continue Reading

To Disclose or Not to Disclose: Navigating the Complex Relationship Between Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Sanctions Violations and Enforcement Response

In the ever-evolving and complex world of economic sanctions, voluntary self-disclosure is frequently the best long-term strategy for any company that discovers a violation of a sanctions regime. The more difficult task is to assess the costs and benefits of self-disclosure in cases where the conduct falls into a gray area. We explain the complex relationship between voluntary self-disclosure and the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s enforcement response in a chapter recently published in the International Comparative Legal Guide.

Read the chapter here.

New York Establishes Six-Year Statute of Limitation for Prosecution of Claims under the Martin Act

On August 25, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed New York State Senate Bill S6536 which established a six-year statute of limitations for the prosecution of certain crimes related to fraudulent practices in respect to stocks, bonds and other securities and conducting business in the State of New York. As discussed below, the legislation overturned a New York Court of Appeals ruling last year holding that claims under the Martin Act were subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Continue Reading

Fund Sponsor’s Fee Calculation Mistake Leads to SEC Enforcement

A settlement last week involving a private equity fund sponsor is a reminder that compliance with fee calculation provisions and valuation policies and procedures are crucially important for fund managers.  Even when an error is the result of simple negligence, the SEC will take enforcement action when fee calculations do not strictly comply with the governing documents, especially where investments are overvalued.  Continue Reading

Veil-Piercing Risks for Private Equity Managers Highlighted in Recent Court Decision

A recent case in a North Dakota district court is a reminder to private equity funds and managers that, under certain conditions, they may be held responsible for actions of a fund’s portfolio companies.  Courts allow plaintiffs to pierce the corporate veil as a check against improper abuse of the corporate form.  When one corporate entity is under such extensive control by another that the first is merely an alter ego of the second, a court may permit a plaintiff to reach through the corporate structure to gain recovery.  This is particularly true if the first entity is undercapitalized.  Through this mechanism, limited liability does not mean immunity from liability, and under certain circumstances a plaintiff can hold the ultimate shareholders or owners liable for company obligations. Continue Reading

LexBlog