Investment Advisers Act Section 206(4)

Subscribe to Investment Advisers Act Section 206(4) via RSS

We have seen the SEC increase its focus on valuation of privately-held portfolio companies recently. The SEC’s increased focus is in line with our prediction made in the Top Ten Regulatory and Litigation Risks for Private Funds in 2020 post from the start of this year, and we expect the trend to continue. The global COVID-19 crisis has added a layer of complexity to the valuation process, which for illiquid assets can be challenging during even calm economic conditions. While some companies have benefited from the changes brought on by COVID-19, the overall market conditions resulting from the crisis have led some to predict an increased likelihood of down rounds and a decrease in expected returns, potentially impacting small portfolio companies and large unicorns alike. In some cases, economic uncertainty already has taken a quantifiable toll on the businesses and prospects of portfolio companies. And the process of estimating fair value remains even more challenging because the full scope of the economic downturn remains as yet unknown. Overly optimistic valuations can lead to inflated expectations of fund investors, as well as regulatory risks if the SEC decides to take a closer look at a particular valuation.

As investors drive demand for investment products focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, fund managers have increasingly offered ESG-focused or “sustainable investing” funds. However, a recent speech by SEC Commissioner Elad Roisman has highlighted regulatory concerns for fund managers in the ESG space, particularly with respect to disclosures and internal compliance.

Though SEC scrutiny of performance results in fund marketing materials is nothing new, a recent settlement order suggests that the Commission continues to closely examine representations in marketing materials with respect to past investment performance.

Old Ironsides Energy, LLC, a Boston-based registered investment adviser, agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to settle SEC charges alleging a material misstatement in its fund marketing materials. In particular, the adviser’s marketing materials allegedly “identified a large, legacy investment with strong, positive returns as an early stage direct drilling investment” (“DDI”) over which the adviser “had direct management in partnership with project operators, when it was actually an investment in a private fund advised by a third party.”