Author: Doug Cornelius

You can find out more about Doug on the About Doug page

A Flurry of Stories on Mutual Fund Fees

oakmark_logo_new

Over the last few days there has been renewed interest in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will should rule on the fees charged by mutual funds. Back in May, I published Supreme Court to Decide on Investment Company Act Case after they agreed to hear Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. I didn’t expect much mainstream press coverage of the case until the decision comes out next winter.

Over the weekend, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig published Can the Supreme Court Undress High Fund Fees? which pointed out that this case will “hit you right in the pocket.” Then The New York Times ran Supreme Court to Hear Case on Executive Pay which portrayed the as one focused on out of control executive pay. It sounds like the press has figured out that the case could have some broad implications on the way mutual funds decide what fees to charge.

Under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 the “the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company.”

The traditional standard was that a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the adviser charges a fee that is “so disproportionately large” or “excessive” that it “bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch, 694 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1982)

The Jones v. Harris case starts with the claim that the fees are excessive because they far exceed those charged to independent clients. Like many investment advisers, Harris charges less for institutional clients that invest in funds similar to its Oakmark funds. The plaintiffs take the position that a fiduciary should not charge a different price to its controlled clients than it does to its independent clients.

Certainly, mutual funds rarely fire their advisers. But investors do fire the advisers by moving their money to different mutual funds and investments.The decision is likely to focus more on the procedure for setting fees than the absolute value of the fees.

It sounds like this case is getting tarted up as a blast against executive compensation. But really, its about the dense language in the Investment Company Act, fiduciary duty and compliance. Since the decision could have a broad impact on lots of peoples’ investments, it will likely get lots of coverage at the oral arguments on November 2, 2009 and whenever the decision comes out.

References:

150 Years or the Firing Squad

The Third of May by Francisco Goya
The Third of May by Francisco Goya

What is the right punishment for financial fraud?

Bernie Madoff received the maximum sentence for his charges. 150 years. His lieutenant, DiPascali, was denied bail by the judge at his hearing last week, despite an agreement between his lawyer and the prosecutors. He has a maximum sentence of 120 years. They stole billions.

Marc Dreier committed securities fraud, stealing $380 million. He got 20 years.

Du Yimin, conned more than $100 million from investors. She promised them monthly returns of up to 10 percent from investments in beauty parlors, real estate and mining businesses owned by her company. She was put in front of the firing squad.

Si Chaxian conned people out of $24 million. He said they could receive interest of up to 108%.  He got the firing squad.

You can probably guess which two fraudsters are from China. The Chinese government puts to death more people than any other country. (Although Iran and Singapore have a higher per capita rate of execution.)

Though usually reserved for violent crimes, death sentences are also applied for nonviolent offenses that involve large sums of money or are seen to threaten social order.  China’s highest court said the two frauds had “seriously damaged the country’s financial regulatory order and social stability.”

I guess this is China’s way of  instituting reform in the financial markets and preventing fraud. But is it effective? Will be talented people just avoid the financial sector for fear of death?

References:

New Compliance and Disclosure Intepretations for Regulation FD

sec-seal

As part of the Updates to Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, the SEC has published new compliance and disclosure intepretations for Regulation FD.

I found these CD&I’s particularly interesting in light of the SEC’s loss in the Cuban case. The SEC seems to be providing a better roadmap for disclosure of information.

Here are a few questions that caught my eye, with a snapshot of the answer. Go to the compliance and disclosure interpretations for Regulation FD for the full answer.

Question 101.03: Can an issuer ever review and comment on an analyst’s model privately without triggering Regulation FD’s disclosure requirements?

Answer: Yes. . .

Question 101.04: May an issuer provide material nonpublic information to analysts as long as the analysts expressly agree to maintain confidentiality until the information is public?

Answer: Yes.

Question 101.05: If an issuer gets an agreement to maintain material nonpublic information in confidence, must it also get the additional statement that the recipient agrees not to trade on the information in order to rely on the exclusion in Rule 100(b)(2)(ii) of Regulation FD?

Answer: No. An express agreement to maintain the information in confidence is sufficient. If a recipient of material nonpublic information subject to such a confidentiality agreement trades or advises others to trade, he or she could face insider trading liability.

Question 101.06: If an issuer wishes to rely on the confidentiality agreement exclusion of Regulation FD, is it sufficient to get an acknowledgment that the recipient of the material nonpublic information will not use the information in violation of the federal securities laws?

Answer: No. The recipient must expressly agree to keep the information confidential.

Question 101.09: Can an issuer disclose material nonpublic information to its employees (who may also be shareholders) without making public disclosure of the information?

Answer: Yes. Rule 100(b)(1) states that Regulation FD applies to disclosures made to “any person outside the issuer.” Regulation FD does not apply to communications of confidential information to employees of the issuer. An issuer’s officers, directors, and other employees are subject to duties of trust and confidence and face insider trading liability if they trade or tip.

Question 101.10: If an issuer has a policy that limits which senior officials are authorized to speak to persons enumerated in Rule 100(b)(1)(i) – (b)(1)(iv), will disclosures by senior officials not authorized to speak under the policy be subject to Regulation FD?

Answer: No. Selective disclosures of material nonpublic information by senior officials not authorized to speak to enumerated persons are made in breach of a duty of trust or confidence to the issuer and are not covered by Regulation FD. Such disclosures may, however, trigger liability under existing insider trading law.

Updates to Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations

sec-seal

The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance has updated a bunch of Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations.

Here are a few questions that caught my eye, with a snapshot of the answer. Follow the question’s link for the complete answer.

There are many more new and revised questions under the Securities Act Sections, Rules and Forms, Regulation S-K, Exchange Act Sections, Section 16 and Regulation FD.

Securities Act Sections

Question 103.04: Where the offer and sale of convertible securities or warrants are being registered under the Securities Act, and such securities are convertible or exercisable within one year, must the underlying securities be registered at that time?

Answer: Yes. . . .

Question 139.28: Must offers and sales be suspended during the waiting period of a post-effective amendment to an effective registration statement?

Answer: Offers and sales must be suspended if the post-effective amendment is filed for the purpose of a Section 10(a)(3) amendment and the prospectus is already stale for Section 10(a)(3) purposes. . . .

Securities Act Rules

Question 212.05: Can a registration statement under Rule 415 be declared effective without an opinion of counsel as to the legality of the securities being issued when no immediate sales are contemplated?

Answer: No. However, . . .

Securities Act Forms

Question 130.14: The Item-by-Item instructions for Item 7 of Form D indicate that an issuer must enter the date of the first sale of securities in the offering if the issuer is filing a “new notice.” If an issuer is filing an amendment to a Form D filing, must the issuer provide current information about the date of first sale in the amendment?

Answer: Yes. Rule 503(a)(4) provides that an issuer that files an amendment must provide current information in response to all requirements of the form, regardless of why the amendment is filed. For example, if, in the original Form D, the issuer indicated that the first sale has “Yet to Occur” and if, by the time of the amendment, the date of first sale is known, then the issuer must disclose the actual date of first sale in the amendment.

Regulation FD

This is an all new collection of CD&’s for Regulation FD.

References:

Massachusetts Amends Strict Data Privacy Law (Again)

Massachusetts-State-House

UPDATE: Another revision was published on November 5, 2009. See: Massachusetts Amends Its Strict Data Privacy Law (Yet, Again)

The Massachusetts’ Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation has decided to amend the strict data privacy law and extend the deadline for compliance. This is yet another amendment to the regulations. The last amendment had extended the compliance deadline to January 1, 2010.

In keeping with Governor Deval Patrick’s commitment to balancing consumer protection with the needs of small business owners, the adjustments to Massachusetts’ identity theft regulations allow some flexibility in compliance by small businesses. The regulations now have a risk-based approach that may make it easier on small businesses that may not handle a lot of personal information about customers. Under a risk-based approach, a business, in developing a written security program, can take into account its size, nature of its business, the kinds of records it maintains, and the risk of identity theft posed by its operations.

Key amendments to 201 CMR 17.00 include:

Section 17.01 (1) Purpose of the regulation was amended to include language from M.G.L. 93H.

Section 17.01 (2) Scope of the regulations was revised to cover “persons who own or license personal information”. Section removes previous regulatory language related to those that “store or maintain personal information”.

Section 17.02 Encryption definition was amended to be technology neutral. A definition for the term “owns and licenses” was added to focus the protection of personal information in “connection with the provision of goods or services or in connection with employment”. A new definition for the term “service provider” was added.

Section 17.03 (1) Duty to protect rules look to address size and scope of a firm within the development and implementation of a written information security plan. (2) Amends and removes some requirements for the written information security plan. (f) Amends third party vendor rules and provides a two year window relative to contracts and requirements for compliance.

Section 17.04 Amends computer requirements for persons that own or license personal information to develop a written information security plan “that at a minimum, and to extent technologically feasible, shall have the following elements”.

Section 17.05 Amends the effective date of the regulations to March 1, 2010.

There will be a hearing on the revised regulations commencing at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday September 22, 2009, in Room No. 5-6, Second Floor of the Transportation Building, Ten Park Plaza Boston, Massachusetts 02116. Interested parties will be afforded a reasonable opportunity at the hearing to present oral or written testimony. Written comments will be accepted up to the close of business on September 25, 2009. Such written comments may be mailed to: Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 5170, Boston, MA 02116, Attention: Jason Egan, Deputy General Counsel, or e-mailed to [email protected].

References:

AIMA Warns of Global Impact of EU AIFM Directive

aima-logo

The Alternative Investment Management Association has warned that the European Commission’s draft directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers would negatively affect fund managers and investors around the world if enacted into European law.

The Directive applies primarily to any Alternative Investment Fund Managers which is established in an EU Member State and which provides management and administration services to one or more alternative investment funds. However, it will also apply to the marketing of a fund within the EU by Alternative Investment Fund Managers which are established outside the EU.

Marketing Conditions

There are five conditions that a non EU registered fund manager must meet to be able to market the alternative investment fund in the EU:

  • Its home country must have prudential regulation and ongoing supervision which is “equivalent” to the Directive’s provisions
  • Its home country allows effective market access to EU fund managers which is comparable to that granted by the EU to fund managers from that country
  • Its home country has a cooperation agreement with EU regulators for monitoring the potential implications of the activities of the Third Country Fund Manager for the stability of systemically relevant financial institutions and the orderly functioning of markets
  • Its home country has signed an agreement with EU regulators to allow the sharing of  information on tax matters
  • The fund must provide EU regulators with the identities of significant owners

Satisfying the Conditions

Unfortunately for fund managers, four out of the five requirements require their home country to act. If the EU effectively locks out funds managed by non-EU fund managers, countries may reciprocate and lock out funds managed by EU managers from their markets.

If the Directive is adopted in its current form, fund managers may need to open an EU office and subject themselves to the EU and member state regulations.

Status

The Directive is merely at the start of the EU’s legislative process and it is likely to be revised before the Directive comes into force.

References:

Control Components Inc. and the FCPA

valve

Control Components Inc. pleaded guilty to violating the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Travel Act, admitting to bribing foreign officials in a decade-long scheme.

As part of the plea agreement, Control Components agreed to pay a criminal fine of $18.2 million; create, implement and maintain a comprehensive anti-bribery compliance program; retain an independent compliance monitor for a three-year period to review the design and implementation of Control Components’ anti-bribery compliance program and to make periodic reports to CCI and the Department of Justice; serve a three-year term of organizational probation; and continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice in its ongoing investigation.

A few months ago, two former executives of Control Components pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe officers and employees of foreign state-owned companies on behalf of the company. Mario Covino was CCI’s former director of worldwide factory sales. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and admitted to causing the payment of $1 million in bribes to officers and employees of several foreign state-owned companies. Richard Morlok was CCI’s former finance director. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and admitted to causing the payment of $628,000 in bribes to officers and employees of several foreign state-owned companies.

These days, another FCPA case seems to be fairly routine. There are two aspects of this case that are worth noting.

First, the payments were made to officers of state-owned companies, not to government bureaucrats. This is the peril of working with state-owned enterprises. As far as the FCPA and the DOJ are concerned, there is no difference.

The second item to note is that the DOJ included not only the suitcases of cash, but also included vacations to Disneyland, Las Vegas and Hawaii. The Information also included lavish sales events to entertain current and potential customers.

When dealing with customers and hosting sales events, it is important to identify who may be a government official for purposes of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

References:

A View of the MBA Ethics Oath by the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

A hilarious view on the MBA Ethics Oath by Jon Stewart and Jon Oliver on The Daily Show. There is a great Scared Straight piece with some MBA Students.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
MBA Ethics Oath
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

FBAR Filing Deadline Extended (For Some)

IRS_Logo
The deadline for Foreign Bank Account Reporting was June 30. The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Account is IRS TD F 90-22.1 (.pdf). Any United States person who has a financial interest in or signature authority, or other authority over any financial account in a foreign country, if the aggregate value of these accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year must file the report. An FBAR must be filed whether or not the foreign account generates any income.

Although FBAR requirement has been around for a few years, the IRS recently revised the filing requirements. It seems to have caught many people by surprise.The IRS had extended the FBAR Filing deadline to September 23 for taxpayers who reported and paid tax on all their 2008 taxable income, but only recently learned of their FBAR filing obligation and have insufficient time to gather the necessary information to complete the FBAR.

There are a few instances that the filing requirement seems unclear and really unexpected, so the IRS further extended the filing deadline in two instances:

  1. Persons with no financial interest in a foreign financial account but with signature or other authority over the foreign financial account.
  2. Persons with a financial interest in, or signature authority over, a foreign financial account in which the assets are held in a commingled fund.

If that is you, then then you have until June 30, 2010 to file FBARs for the 2008, 2009 and earlier calendar years.

In the first instance, company officers and employees were caught off guard that they need to personally file an FBAR for company accounts. As part of IRS Notice 2009-62 (.pdf), the Department of the Treasury is requesting comments regarding when a person with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account should be relieved of filing an FBAR for the account. Especially, when the person with a financial interest in the account has filed an FBAR.

The second instance was triggered by statements made by the IRS in June indicating their view that the term “foreign commingled fund” includes private investment funds organized outside the United States. As part of IRS Notice 2009-62 (.pdf), the Treasury Department is asking for comments on this approach.

References:

Ex-Madoff Finance Chief Frank DiPascali Pleads Guilty

bars-dipascali

Frank DiPascali, the finance chief at Bernard Madoff’s investment advisory business, pleaded guilty to helping his boss carry out a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. DiPascali pleaded guilty to 10 counts, including conspiracy, fraud and money laundering. DiPascali has been cooperating with prosecutors, explaining how he and others helped Madoff defraud investors by using money from new clients to pay earlier ones at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

Maybe we will get some insight into how the fraud began and what sent Madoff and DiPascali over to the dark side. The crime is done and the victims have lost. I am hoping to get some insight into the fraud so we can apply those lessons going forward.

In addition to the criminal proceedings, the Securities and Exchange Commission also filed a complaint against DiPascali. He has consented to a proposed partial judgment, which would impose a permanent injunction against him. The part DiPascali did not consent to were the issues of disgorgement and a financial penalty which will be decided at a later time.

The judge denied a bail request by prosecutors and DiPascali’s lawyer, who argued that sending him to jail would hamper his cooperation in the investigation. He is expected to provide prosecutors with a road map of those in the Madoff inner circle who were involved in the scheme that swindled investors out of an estimated $64.8 billion.

References: