The Capital Commitment

Proskauer on Private Fund Litigation

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

Proposed Senate Bill Would Significantly Impact Certain Private Funds and Their Affiliates

Recently, a group of Congress members introduced into Congress Senate Bill 2155 named the Stop Wall Street Looting Act of 2019. Although unlikely to be enacted into law as drafted, this proposed legislation would directly and substantially affect a number of fundamental operational aspects of private equity funds and their affiliates. Continue Reading

Third Circuit Discusses Important Differences Between Board Observers and Directors

The Third Circuit recently issued an important decision for private fund advisors who serve on corporate boards.  In a precedential decision on a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit distinguished the role of nonvoting board observers from the function of formal corporate directors.  And while the decision was issued in the context of liability for alleged violations of the securities laws, the Third Circuit suggested the analysis may apply more broadly to other situations involving board observers.

The case, Obasi Investment Ltd. v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, began in New Jersey federal court as a class action lawsuit alleging Tibet Pharmaceuticals failed to disclose certain information about its financial health prior to its IPO.  Two of the defendants, Downs and Zou, claimed they were merely observers to Tibet’s board and therefore should not be found liable for any misconduct of the company board.  The trial court judge granted summary judgment in the duo’s favor on all counts except a violation of Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act, stating that the question presented a novel issue ripe for an appellate court.

On appeal, the Third Circuit threw out the last remaining Section 11 claim against the two defendants stating that board observers are not the same as directors.  A claim under Section 11 can be brought against any person “named in the registration statement as being or about to become a director, person performing similar functions, or partner.”  The issue before the Third Circuit was whether the board observers were “person[s] performing similar functions” to directors. Continue Reading

Proskauer Launches Private Equity SEC Enforcement Tracker

Today, we are launching a proprietary database tracking all SEC enforcement actions involving private equity advisers. The tracker contains key information from the actions, including summaries of key issues, settlement terms, and relevant statutory provisions. The tracker will be an important resource for us and our clients, providing us with quick access to comparable cases and allowing us to identify important enforcement trends impacting private equity advisers as they develop. We are also making available summary information from the database for all SEC enforcement actions against private equity advisers over the last 6 years.

Click here to view the tracker.

Contact us for additional information.

LexBlog