Jacko Law Group, PC
Call Today for a Consultation
San Diego 619-298-2880 San Francisco 415-766-3599 Los Angeles 213-631-2549

June 2012 Archives

California Department of Corporations Announces Additional Changes to Proposed Private Fund Adviser Exemption

On June 18, 2012 the California Department of Corporations (DOC) published notice of additional changes to its proposed private fund adviser exemption regulation (10 CCR §260.204.9) and a new 15-day public comment period. As reported earlier, the DOC's proposed rule provides a California corollary to the new federal regulatory exemption for private fund advisers with assets under management of less than $150 million. Under the proposed rulemaking, certain California private fund advisers will be exempt from the DOC's investment adviser registration requirement if the adviser: (1) is not subject to statutory disqualification under SEC Rule 262 of Regulation A; (2) files periodic reports on Form ADV containing the information required by federally exempt private fund advisers; and (3) pays an annual fee of $125. Under the DOC's proposed rule, a private fund adviser is defined as an "investment adviser who provides advice solely to one or more qualifying private fund(s)" and a qualifying private funds is an issuer "that qualifies for the exclusion from the definition of an investment company under section 3(c)(1), 3(c)(5), or 3(c)(7) ... of the Investment Company Act of 1940..." The revised exemption was initially proposed on January 6, 2012. Comments received on that initial proposal resulted in a number of changes to the rule, necessitating the new public comment period. The changes to the proposed rule are fairly non-controversial. They include: -Expansion of the definition of "qualifying private fund" to include issuers that qualify for an exclusion from registration as an investment company under Section 3(c)(5)of the Investment Company Act of 1940; -For advisers who qualify for the exemption because their funds are excluded from registration as an investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act of 1940:

SEC Releases FAQs re: Form PF

On June 8, 2012 the SEC's Division of Investment Management issued an initial set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to the filing of Form PF on the PFRD (Private Fund Reporting Depository). Investment advisers registered with the SEC and their related persons (including commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisers required to register as investment advisers) who manage one or more private funds with assets under management (AUM) of at least $150 million are required to file Form PF. The requirement came into effect last year with the SEC's unanimous adoption of Rule 204(b)-1 under the Advisers Act (see this helpful article published by JLG last year on Form PF).  Under the rule, private fund advisers' reporting obligations vary based on the type of private fund managed and the adviser's AUM. The topics covered by the new FAQs include:

GAO Calls On SEC to Strengthen Oversight of FINRA As Congress Weighs Investment Adviser SRO Legislation

On May 30, 2012, the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report , mandated by Dodd-Frank, on its study of the SEC’s oversight of FINRA. The report is critical of the agency’s oversight of FINRA, calling on the agency to direct FINRA to conduct “retrospective reviews” of its rules and to identify ineffective rules that should be abandoned.The report notes the “SEC has conducted limited or no oversight of [certain] aspects of FINRA’s operations, such as governance and executive compensation.” In its response to a draft of the report, the agency maintained it operates “a robust program for the oversight of FINRA” but indicated that SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro had already requested staff to “encourage FINRA to consider additional methods to conduct retrospective reviews of its rules to assess whether [those] rules are achieving their intended purpose.” The SEC’s response also agreed with the report’s recommendations that the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), the department with primary responsibility for FINRA oversight, implement a more comprehensive, risk-based approach to its oversight of the SRO.The report comes just one week before the House Financial Services Committee is set to hold a hearing on legislation that would move direct oversight of investment advisers, which currently rests with the SEC, to a new self-regulatory organization that FINRA is vying to become. The proposed law, H.R. 4624, would amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to create “National Investment Adviser Associations” that, like FINRA’s oversight of Broker-Dealers, would be supervised by the SEC. Proponents of the bill argue that an SRO will increase oversight of advisers. Opponents of the legislation, however, are pointing to the GAO study as further evidence that adding a new layer of oversight will not address the bill’s purported concerns about investor protection.For additional information about these issues or any other securities law concern please contact Sarah Weber at sarah.weber@jackolg.com or (619)298-2880.

SEC Announces Charges in South Florida Ponzi Scheme

On May 22, 2012 the SEC announced the filing of a complaint in Federal District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of federal securities laws by two Fort Lauderdale residents - George Levin and Frank Preve. The SEC alleges that Levin and Preve raised over $157 million from 173 investors in less than two years by issuing promissory notes from Levin's company and interests in a private investment fund they created in 2009. The funds were used to purchase bogus legal settlements from a former prominent Florida attorney, Scott Rothstein, who used investor funds to make payments due other investors and is currently serving a 50-year prison term as a result. The SEC's complaint notes that Levin and Preve's fund, Banyon Income Fund, was the largest source of capital for Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The SEC's complaint alleges the fund's private placement memorandum, which Levin had ultimate responsibility for, stated that there were safeguards in place to protect investor money. In reality, though, the fund purchased the fake settlements without seeing any legal documents or taking any steps to verify their legitimacy. Further, the SEC alleges that even as Rothstein's scheme was collapsing, Levin and Preve sought new investor money, touting the success of their "investment strategy" and falsely stating the fund had collected half of the $1 billion in settlements it had purchased previously, and was due another $550 million. By the time the fund offering began in May 2009, however, Rothstein had apparently ceased making payments on those settlements. Bankruptcy court records from 2009 showed that the fund invested $775 million in Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. For additional information case or any other securities law concern please contact Sarah Weber at sarah.weber@jackolg.com or (619)298-2880.

Email Us For A Response

How Can We Help?

Email us to request more information or to schedule an appointment.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

San Diego Office
1350 Columbia Street
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101

Toll Free: 866-497-2298
Phone: 213-631-2549
Phone: 619-298-2880
Fax: 619-298-2882
Map & Directions

San Francisco Office
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: 213-631-2549
Phone: 415-766-3599
Fax: 619-298-2882
Map & Directions

Los Angeles Office
535 N. Brand Boulevard
Suite 279
Glendale, CA 91203

Phone: 213-631-2549
Fax: 619-298-2882
Map & Directions