Hedge Funds

Subscribe to Hedge Funds via RSS

On June 23rd, the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued a new risk alert entitled “Observations from Examinations of Investment Advisers Managing Private Funds.” As discussed in the client alert below, the report highlights many practices which have been the subject…

A new and unprecedented investment environment has been created during the current COVID emergency as every state that has price gouging laws on its books has activated them, and states without official statues are regulating prices by executive order or existing consumer protection and unfair trade practice laws. Never before…

Last month the SEC brought an enforcement action illustrating how cross trades can trip up a manager of a private fund.  The SEC’s settlement with investment manager Lone Star Value Management LLC was based on allegations that the manager carried out a series of cross trades among funds it managed without disclosing to the client in writing that it was acting as a principal and obtaining the client’s consent. In addition to Lone Star, the SEC also sanctioned its founder, sole managing member, CEO, and portfolio manager for violations of Section 206(3) under the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder relating to principal transactions.

Last year, we highlighted the risks of filing a Section 220 books and records request post-litigation, citing a case where the Delaware Chancery Court found that such use was an improper attempt to “sue first, ask questions later.”

Recently, the Delaware Chancery Court opined on this issue again in Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation – this time, the Vice Chancellor took a more expansive view in favor of the parties seeking information under Section 220. Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law allows stockholders to inspect books and records of a Delaware corporation for any proper purpose and to compel inspection if such inspection is refused.

The private fund industry is more in the public eye than ever before.  Private capital and private markets have experienced massive growth over the last two decades, substantially outpacing the growth of public equity. We have witnessed that trend continue during the past year, and have worked with…

Since the Second Circuit’s 2014 decision in United States v. Newman triggered a debate about the personal benefit requirement, several bills have been introduced in Congress to define insider trading. The most recent effort is H.R. 2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, which the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly last week. The bill would codify certain aspects of the judicially created body of insider trading law. Although we understand that the Senate is unlikely to consider this legislation at least in the near term, the bill’s provisions – if ever enacted – could make it easier for the government to prove insider trading cases, at least against individuals.

Proskauer’s Private Investment Funds Group recently released its 2019 Annual Review and Outlook for Hedge Funds, Private Equity Funds and Other Private Funds. This yearly publication provides a summary of some of the significant changes and developments that occurred in the past year in the private equity and hedge funds space, as well as certain recommended practices that advisers should consider when preparing for 2020.

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.

A recent action where the SEC focused on the presumably conservative undervaluation of assets suggests that it is more than willing to use valuation as a hook to deter “smoothing” of returns. As we previously noted, while the SEC consistently announces that valuation is a “key area of focus,” it is uncommon for regulators to second guess valuation determinations in the absence of other potential violations. However, failure to adhere to stated valuation policies/procedures is one situation that may lead to heightened regulatory exposure and disputes.

A recent decision by the Delaware Chancery Court suggests that a litigant might forego the ability to file a books and records request if it waits to do so until after the lawsuit is filed. Last month the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed just such an action, characterizing the request for a books and records inspection after the filing of a lawsuit as “inherently contradictory” and an improper attempt to “sue first, ask questions later.”

Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law allows stockholders to inspect books and records of a Delaware corporation for any proper purpose and to compel inspection if such inspection is refused. Section 220 is typically used prior to the filing of a lawsuit as a means to develop information to support a plaintiff’s claims before it has access to discovery rules.  The corollaries to a Section 220 demand in the limited partnership and limited liability company contexts are known as a Section 17-305 demand and a Section 18-305 demand, respectively.