The SEC issued an order imposing sanctions against private equity adviser Rialto Capital Management, LLC (“Rialto”) for violations of the Advisors Act relating to expense allocation. The settlement addressed Rialto’s allocation of expenses for certain “third-party tasks” performed by in-house employees, which was allowed under the relevant fund documents with consent of the limited partner advisory committee (LPAC). Yet the SEC took issue with the practice of fully allocating certain expenses to the funds rather than proportionately to co-investors, as well as the manner in which the expenses were disclosed to the LPAC for approval.
First Circuit Reverses District Court’s “Partnership-in-Fact” Holding and Finds Private Equity Funds Not Part of Controlled Group and Not Liable for Portfolio Company’s Pension Liabilities
Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that two co-investing Sun Capital private equity funds had not created an implied “partnership-in-fact” for purposes of determining whether the Sun Funds were under “common control” with their portfolio company, Scott Brass, Inc. (SBI) – resulting in a
Proskauer Private Investment Funds Group Releases 2019 Annual Review and Outlook
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
DC Circuit Opinion Reaffirms Fiduciary and Disclosure Obligations of Advisers While Rejecting SEC Finding of “Willful” Violations
The DC Circuit recently released an opinion addressing the SEC’s administrative findings against registered investment adviser The Robare Group (TRG) for failure to disclose alleged conflicts of interest. Although the court affirmed the SEC’s finding of a violation of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act, it held that Commission could not find willful violations under Section 207 based on the same negligent conduct.
The court’s analysis of 206(2) of the Advisers Act, the key negligence-based antifraud provision for investment advisers, is instructive. The court affirmed that, as a fiduciary to its clients, the adviser was required to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts, including conflicts of interest.
Delaware Chancery Declines Post-Filing Use of Section 220 Books and Records Inspection Request
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.