On November 18, 2016, outgoing SEC Chair Mary Jo White delivered a speech at New York University School of Law entitled “A New Model for SEC Enforcement: Producing Bold and Unrelenting Results.” Chair White’s remarks covered a broad range of enforcement initiatives and outcomes from her tenure as SEC Chair. This post summarizes the aspects of Chair White’s remarks most relevant to private fund sponsors.
SEC Shake-Up: President-Elect Trump Expected to Make Key Appointments
In the wake of the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, Mary Jo White has announced her intent to step down from her role as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Chair White, the 31st and one of the longest-serving Chairs of the SEC, will be leaving her post at the end of the Obama administration in January.
The outcome of the election and Chair White’s announcement are sure to kick off an avalanche of prognostication about her successor, the direction of the SEC, and the fate of some of the laws that govern the securities industry, most principally the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. There is already speculation that President-elect Trump will designate a Chair who is a proponent of smaller government and deregulation to steer the agency charged with overseeing the securities industry.
Beyond designating a Chair, however, President-elect Trump will be in a position to overhaul the makeup of the SEC during his administration. Upon assuming office, President-elect Trump will be authorized to appoint three of the five SEC Commissioners, in addition to designating the next Chair – with a fourth Commissioner appointment as early as June of 2017. This is particularly important in an agency that relies on Commissioner votes for each decision, order, rule or similar action. However, despite his broad appointment powers, President-elect Trump will not be permitted to remove any of the remaining Commissioners, nor will he be permitted to “stack the deck” by appointing only Republicans to fill all of the open Commissioner seats.
SEC Announces Record Number of Investment Adviser Cases for FY 2016
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced its enforcement results for fiscal year 2016, reaching new highs in the number of actions filed and money ordered forfeited through disgorgement and penalties. The SEC noted that it brought the most ever cases involving investment advisers or investment companies, including 8 enforcement actions related to private equity advisers, an area that has clearly been a priority for the Commission over the past year, and a record 21 cases under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, an area of increasing importance to the SEC.
SEC Whistleblower Settlement Reminds Fund Sponsors to Review Organizational Policies and Procedures
A recent SEC settlement of whistleblower charges should serve as a useful reminder for private fund sponsors to conduct a comprehensive review of their policies and procedures.
On August 10, 2016, the SEC announced that BlueLinx Holdings Inc., an Atlanta-based building products distributor, had settled charges that it violated securities laws by using severance agreements that contravened Dodd-Frank provisions prohibiting employers from impeding whistleblower reporting.
Whistleblower Concerns for Private Fund Advisers – Seven Mistakes To Avoid
As we have previously observed, private fund advisers face a difficult challenge when SEC guidance (in the form of a speech or a public enforcement order) indicates that certain long-standing practices may be contrary to the securities laws. What does an adviser do when its past practices appear, in hindsight, to have fallen short?
While there are a number of potential “fixes”, including rebating fees, amending the fund documents, amending the Form ADV, and changing prospective practices, doing nothing is a particularly bad strategy. These situations are potential whistleblower events, even if the adviser is not yet aware of any whistleblower. Advisers must recognize that their personnel might be motivated (economically and otherwise) to bypass internal reporting and report directly to the SEC. Similarly, investors and others may go directly to the SEC. When management becomes aware of a potential violation, there is usually a short time window to address the issue before it becomes a bigger problem. Over the past two months, the SEC has issued over $26 million in whistleblower awards, including a $17 million award. And the SEC is actively pursuing cases against investment advisers relating to improper fees and inadequate disclosures, including a number of cases filed in the past month (see here, here, here, and here).
Letting an issue linger is not an option, because—chances are—the regulators will eventually examine the issue. Below are some key mistakes to avoid when addressing issues relating to the SEC’s whistleblower program.
SEC Adopts Higher Net Worth Threshold for Qualified Clients under the Advisers Act
In an order dated June 14, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted its prior proposal to increase the net worth threshold for “qualified clients” under Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act) from $2 million to $2.1 million. This adjustment is being made pursuant to a five-year indexing adjustment required by §205(e) of the Advisers Act.
Application of the Joint Proposed Incentive Compensation Rule to Investment Advisers
On May 16, 2016, six federal agencies issued a joint release inviting public comment on a proposed rule to prohibit or condition certain incentive-based compensation arrangements. This proposed rule was mandated by section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) and is a revision of the proposed rule the agencies previously published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011.
As one of the six agencies, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is seeking to apply the rule to covered institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than or equal to $1 billion that offer incentive-based compensation to covered persons. By its terms, the definition of “covered financial institution” in section 956 of Dodd-Frank includes any institution that meets the definition of “investment adviser” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the Advisers Act), regardless of whether the institution is registered, or exempted or prohibited from registration, as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
SEC Proposes Higher Net Worth Threshold for Qualified Clients under the Advisers Act
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed to increase the net worth threshold for qualified clients from $2 million to $2.1 million. This proposed adjustment is being made pursuant to a five-year indexing adjustment required by §205(e) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act), as amended by §418 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
Investment advisers registered with the SEC are prohibited by §205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act from entering into, extending, or renewing any advisory contract which provides for compensation to the investment adviser on the basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client (e.g. a performance-based fee like carried interest). An exemption from this prohibition is provided by Rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act for clients that meet the definition of a qualified client found in the rule.