Category: Corporate Compliance

U.S. Sentencing Commission Weighing Recommendation to Increase Criminal Antitrust Penalties

Dickinson Wright Logo

In June, the United States Sentencing Commission, which is appointed by the President to make recommendations to Congress on the criminal penalties for the violation of federal law, issued a request for comments regarding whether the guidelines for calculating antitrust fines should be modified. Currently, corporate fines for cartel price fixing are calculated on a sliding scale, tied to the amount of the “overcharge” imposed by the violators, with the standard maximum fine under the Guidelines for a corporation capped at $100 million and, for an individual, capped at $1 million. The deadline for such comments was July 29, and the views expressed on the issue varied considerably.

Contending that the current Guidelines do not provide an adequate deterrent to antitrust violations, the American Antitrust Institute urged the Commission to recommend an increase in the fines for cartel behavior. The AAI stated that the presumption in the Guidelines that antitrust cartels, on average, “overcharge” consumers for goods by 10% is greatly understated, and thus should be corrected to reflect more accurate levels. Pointing to economic studies and cartel verdicts, the AAI suggests that the median cartel “overcharge” is actually in excess of 20%, and therefore the presumption should be modified in the Guidelines. If adopted, the AAI’s proposal would double the recommended fines under the Guidelines for antitrust violations.

Perhaps surprisingly, the DOJ responded to the Commission’s Notice by stating that it believes that the current fines are sufficient, and that no increase in antitrust fines is warranted at this time. The DOJ indicated that the 10% overcharge presumption provides a “predictable, uniform methodology” for the calculation of fines in most cases, and noted that the Guidelines already permit the DOJ to exceed the fine levels calculated using the 10% overcharge presumption in some circumstances. Specifically, the DOJ noted that the alternative sentencing provisions of 18 USC 3571 already permit it to sidestep the standard guidelines and seek double the gain or loss from the violation where appropriate. Notably, the DOJ utilized this provision in seeking a $1 billion fine from AU Optronics in a 2012 action, although the court declined the request, characterizing it as “excessive”. The court did, however, impose a $500 million fine, an amount well in excess of the cap under the standard antitrust fine guidelines.

Finally, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg and FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright offered a completely different view on the issue in comments that they submitted to the Sentencing Commission. Suggesting that fines imposed on corporations seem to have little deterrent effect, regardless of amount, they encouraged the Commission to instead recommend an increase in the individual criminal penalty provisions for antitrust violations. Notably, they encouraged the Commission not only to consider recommending an increase in the fines to which an individual might be subjected (currently capped at $1 million), but also to recommend an increase in the prescribed range of jail sentences for such conduct (which currently permit for imprisonment of up to 10 years).

The Commission will now weigh these comments and ultimately submit its recommendations to Congress by next May. If any changes are adopted by Congress, they would likely go into effect later next year. Stay tuned.

ARTICLE BY

James M. Burns
 
OF 
Dickinson Wright PLLC

ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund: How Broad Was That Bylaw?

AllenM logo with tagline

On our July 1st posting, I noted a recent Form 8-K filing that discloses the adoption of a fee-shifting bylaw.  In  ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 2014 Del. LEXIS 209 (Del. May 8, 2014), the Delaware Supreme Court held that a fee-shifting provisions in a non-stock corporation’s bylaws can be valid and enforceable under Delaware law.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court said:  ”A bylaw that allocates risk among parties in intra-corporate litigation would also appear to satisfy the DGCL’s requirement that bylaws must ‘relat[e] to the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, and its rights or powers or the rights or powers of its stockholders, directors, officers or employees.’”  Note that the Court held that a fee-shifting bylaw “can be valid and enforceable”.  Thus, the Court only addressed the question of facial validity – it expressly disclaimed any conclusions on either the adoption or use of the bylaw in question.

In my review of the bylaw at issue in the case, it seems to me that it is so broadly worded that it arguably covers situations unrelated to the business of the corporation et cetera.  Here is the bylaw as quoted in the Court’s opinion:

In the event that (i) any [current or prior member or Owner or anyone on their behalf (“Claiming Party”)] initiates or asserts any [claim or counterclaim (“Claim”)] or joins, offers substantial assistance to or has a direct financial interest in any Claim against the League or any member or Owner (including any Claim purportedly filed on behalf of the League or any member), and (ii) the Claiming Party (or the third party that received substantial assistance from the Claiming Party or in whose Claim the Claiming Party had a direct financial interest) does not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieves, in substance and amount, the full remedy sought, then each Claiming Party shall be obligated jointly and severally to reimburse the League and any such member or Owners for all fees, costs and expenses of every kind and description (including, but not limited to, all reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses) (collectively, “Litigation Costs”) that the parties may incur in connection with such Claim.

Now, let’s suppose that one member of the corporation is driving to pick up her child at school and collides with an automobile driven by another member who is on her way to a social occasion.  If the first member sues the second member and fails to obtain a judgment on the merits, will that member be liable under the bylaw for attorneys’ fees and other costs?  The bylaw seems to require only that a member assert a claim against another member and fail to obtain a judgment.  The bylaw does not on its face require that the claim be brought by or against a member qua member.

Article By:

Keith Paul Bishop
Of:
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency Conference- June 23-25, Chicago, IL

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the 2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency Conference, June 24-25, 2014, presented by Marcus Evans.Conflict-Minerals-250-x-250

Click here to register.

Where

Chicago, IL

When

June 24-25, 2014

What

The 2nd Sustaining Conflict Minerals Compliance Conference will break down each SEC filing requirement as well as examine direct filing examples from specific companies. Discussions will tackle key issues including refining conflict minerals teams to create a more successful conflict minerals management program, managing and developing consistent communication within the supply chain, and building an IT program that will continue to secure data from the various levels of the supply chain.

This conference will allow organizations to benchmark their conflict minerals management program against their peers to more efficiently meet SEC expectations and amend their program for future filings. Seating is limited to maintain and intimate educational environment that will cultivate the knowledge and experience of all participants.

Key Topics
  • Scrutinize the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements and evaluate external resources for a more efficient conflict minerals rule with Newport News Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries
  • Engineer a sustainable conflict minerals program for future filings with Alcatel-Lucent
  • Integrate filings and best practices from the first year of reporting with BlackBerry
  • Maintain a strong rapport with all tiers of your supply chain to increase transparency with KEMET
  • Obtain complete responses moving throughout the supply chain with Global Advanced Metals

Register today!

Accepting on-site registration for 14th Annual SuperConference from InsideCounsel

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 14th Annual Super Conference hosted by Inside Counsel. You can still register on-site!

Now offering an exclusive National Law Review discount until May 12. Register HERE.
IC Superconference 2014

When

Monday, May 12 – Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Where

Chicago, IL

The annual InsideCounsel SuperConference, for the past 13 years, has offered the highest value for educational investment within a constructive learning and networking environment. Legal professionals will gain the opportunity to elevate the quality of their performance and learn ways to become a strategic partner within his/her organization. In two-and-half days attendees earn CLE credits, network with hundreds of peers and legal service providers and hear strategies to tackle corporate legal issues that are top of mind throughout this comprehensive program. SuperConference is presented by InsideCounsel magazine, published by Summit Professional Networks.

Now celebrating its 14th year, InsideCounsel’s SuperConference is an exclusive corporate legal conference attracting more than 500 senior level in-house counsels from Fortune-1000 and multi-national companies. The three-day event offers opportunities to showcase your firm’s industry knowledge and thought leadership while interacting with GC’s and other senior corporate counsel during exclusive networking and educational opportunities. The conference agenda offers the perfect blend of experts and national figure heads from some of the nation’s largest corporations, top law firms, government and regulatory leaders, and industry trailblazers. The conference agenda and educational program receives consistent high marks.

2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency – June 23-25, Chicago, IL

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the 2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency Conference, June 24-25, 2014, presented by Marcus Evans.Conflict-Minerals-250-x-250

Click here to register.

Where

Chicago, IL

When

June 24-25, 2014

What

The 2nd Sustaining Conflict Minerals Compliance Conference will break down each SEC filing requirement as well as examine direct filing examples from specific companies. Discussions will tackle key issues including refining conflict minerals teams to create a more successful conflict minerals management program, managing and developing consistent communication within the supply chain, and building an IT program that will continue to secure data from the various levels of the supply chain.

This conference will allow organizations to benchmark their conflict minerals management program against their peers to more efficiently meet SEC expectations and amend their program for future filings. Seating is limited to maintain and intimate educational environment that will cultivate the knowledge and experience of all participants.

Key Topics
  • Scrutinize the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements and evaluate external resources for a more efficient conflict minerals rule with Newport News Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries
  • Engineer a sustainable conflict minerals program for future filings with Alcatel-Lucent
  • Integrate filings and best practices from the first year of reporting with BlackBerry
  • Maintain a strong rapport with all tiers of your supply chain to increase transparency with KEMET
  • Obtain complete responses moving throughout the supply chain with Global Advanced Metals

Register today!

Judge Rules in Favor of DOJ Finding Bazaarvoice / PowerReviews Merger Anticompetitive (Department of Justice)

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

 

On January 8, 2014, Judge Orrick of the Northern District of California ruled that Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of competitor PowerReviews violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  The ruling was in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  The public version of the opinion was made available on January 10.  In its self-described “necessarily lengthy opinion,” which spans 141 pages, the court ultimately found that the facts overwhelmingly showed the acquisition will have anticompetitive effects and that Bazaarvoice did not overcome the government’s prima facie case.  The case included 40 witnesses at trial, more than 100 depositions and 980 exhibits.  Dr. Carl Shapiro testified as DOJ’s economist and Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh testified on behalf of Bazaarvoice/PowerReviews.  The court noted that the case presented some difficult issues, including that there were no generally accepted “market share statistics covering the sales of R&R solutions or social commerce solutions and no perfect way to measure market shares.”  And while neither side presented flawless analyses, the court found Dr. Shapiro’s approaches more persuasive than those of Dr. Shehadeh.

Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews each offered sophisticated “R&R platforms.”  R&R platforms provide a user interface and review form for the collection and display of user-generated content (i.e., user reviews) on the product page of a commercial website where the product can be purchased.  Often these are in the form of star ratings and open-ended reviews in a text box.  R&R platforms increase sales for the retailer and have a variety of different features.  The court noted that many on-ine retailers view an R&R platform as “necessary.”  Before the merger, Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews offered similar products and features and targeted similar customers.

The court found that the relevant product market was the narrow “R&R platforms,” rather than the broader “social commerce tools” or “eCommerce platforms.”  The court went through many popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, explaining why each was not a substitute for these R&R platforms.  In this relevant market, the court found that PowerReviews was Bazaarvoice’s only real competitor, and thus the merger “would eliminate Bazaarvoice’s only meaningful commercial competitor.”

At the end of the opinion, the court commented on the role of antitrust “in rapidly changing high-tech markets.”  It noted that there is a debate as to whether antitrust is properly suited to assess competitive effects in these markets.  The court declined to take sides and stated that its “mission is to assess the alleged antitrust violations presented, irrespective of the dynamism of the market at issue.”

The case now moves to the remedy phase.  In its complaint, the DOJ requested that the court order Bazaarvoice to divest assets originally possessed by either Bazaarvoice and/or PowerReviews to create a viable, competing business.   However, as Judge Orrick noted, 18 months after the merger, it may not be so simple to divest assets.  The judge scheduled a conference for January 22 with the parties to discuss a possible remedy.

There are several lessons to be gathered from this case.  First, the Bazaarvoice litigation is further evidence that the antitrust agencies are not shy about litigating mergers they feel are anticompetitive.  The DOJ invested significant resources and time – including three full weeks at trial in California – into litigating the case, beginning with its investigation that it launched two days after the firms closed their transaction on June 12, 2012.  It has established a significant record of bringing, and winning, merger cases.

Second, this is a significant event, having a federal district court evaluate a consummated merger transaction.  While the agencies have challenged many non-reportable transactions, almost all have been resolved by consent order, or litigated through the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) in-house administrative hearing process (where, not surprisingly, the FTC essentially always wins).  Accordingly, parties to a non-reportable transaction that raises significant antitrust risks should expect the agencies to investigate and, if warranted, litigate.

Third, the Court heavily discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments regarding lack of any actual anticompetitive effect, because the companies knew the DOJ was reviewing the deal and could moderate their behavior.  The court discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments that none of the 104 customers who were deposed complained that the merger has hurt them.  The court stated “it would be a mistake to rely on customer testimony about effects of the merger for several reasons.”  Among the reasons the court included was “Bazaarvoice’s business conduct after the merger was likely tempered by the government’s immediate investigation; the customers were not privy to most of the evidence presented to the Court, including that of the economic experts; many of the customers had paid little or no attention to the merger; and each had an idiosyncratic understanding of R&R based on the priorities of their company and their different levels of knowledge, sophistication, and experience.”  Thus, while raising prices after a transaction provides strong evidence to support the government’s case, the lack of a price increase does not necessarily support the merging parties’ defense.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the case shows the need to be circumspect in preparing ordinary course documents.  Aside from the fact that in reportable transactions, the DOJ and FTC are entitled to “4(c)” and “4(d)” documents about the transaction, once a second request is issued or discovery begins, documents created in the ordinary course of business are discoverable.  This includes Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analyses, board meeting minutes, business and strategic plans, market and market share analyses, and competitive assessments.  In this case, the court found the ordinary course documents, and particularly those made by the companies’ executives, some of the most persuasive evidence.  The court quoted extensively from the documents and cited numerous documents from Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews that showed that the parties viewed each other as their primary competitor, that there were no other strong competitors in this market, that the two companies operated in essentially a duopoly, and that the intent of the merger was to eliminate a primary competitor.  Despite the parties’ efforts to explain away these documents, the court was not persuaded.  Thus, it is important that companies carefully consider what to include in documents and e-mails, and assume that any non-privileged material may be discovered.

The agencies’ aggressive pursuit of perceived anticompetitive, non-reportable transactions places a premium on parties’ evaluating the antitrust risk.

The public version of the court’s opinion can be found here:http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f302900/302948.pdf

Article by:

Carrie G. Amezcua

Of:

McDermott Will & Emery

Investment Management Legal and Regulatory Update – October 2013

GK_Logo_Full-Color (CMYK)

SEC Issues Guidance Update for Investment Companies that Invest in Commodity Interests and Announces New Risk and Examinations Office

The staff of the Division of Investment Management has issued a Guidance Update that summarizes the views of the Division regarding disclosure and compliance matters relevant to funds that invest in commodity interests. The staff also announced the creation of a Risk and Examinations Office within the Division of Investment Management that will accompany the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on exam visits.

Disclosure of Derivatives and Associated Risks. Any principal investment strategies disclosure related to derivatives should be tailored specifically to how a fund expects to be managed and should address those strategies that the fund expects to be the most important means of achieving its objectives and that it also anticipates will have a significant effect on its performance. In determining the appropriate disclosure, a fund should consider the degree of economic exposure the derivatives create, in addition to the amount invested in the derivatives strategy. This disclosure also should describe the purpose that the derivatives are intended to serve in the portfolio (e.g., hedging, speculation, or as a substitute for investing in conventional securities), and the extent to which derivatives are expected to be used. Additionally, the disclosure concerning the principal risks of the fund should similarly be tailored to the types of derivatives used by the fund, the extent of their use, and the purpose for using derivatives transactions.

Prior Performance Presentation. A newly registered fund that invests in commodity interests and that includes in its registration statement information concerning the performance of private accounts or other funds managed by the fund’s adviser is responsible for ensuring that such information is not materially misleading. Specifically, a fund that includes the performance of other funds or private accounts should generally include the performance of all other funds and private accounts that have investment objectives, policies, and strategies substantially similar to those of the fund.

Legend Requirement. Rule 481 under the Securities Act requires a fund to provide a legend on the outside front cover page that indicates that the SEC has not approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the disclosure in the prospectus and that any contrary representation is a criminal offense. The staff will not object if a fund that invests in commodity interests includes in the legend language that also indicates that the CFTC has not approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the disclosure in the prospectus.

Compliance and Risk Management. Day-to-day responsibility for managing a fund’s portfolio, including any commodity interests and their associated risks, rests with the fund’s investment adviser. In addition, the fund’s board generally oversees the adviser’s risk management activities as part of the board’s oversight of the adviser’s management of the fund. The staff expects that funds and their advisers would adopt policies and procedures that address, among other things, consistency of fund portfolio management with disclosed investment objectives and policies, strategies, and risks.

Each fund should have in place policies and procedures that are sufficient to address the accuracy of disclosures made about the fund’s use of derivatives, including commodity interests, and associated risks, as well as consistency of the fund’s investments in these derivatives with the fund’s investment objectives. For example, these policies and procedures should be reasonably designed to prevent material misstatements about a fund’s use of derivatives, including commodity interests, and the associated risks.

New Risk and Examinations Office. The update notes that a Risk and Examinations Office has recently been created within the Division of Investment Management to analyze and monitor the risk management activities of investment advisers, investment companies, the investment management industry and new products. The group will work closely with OCIE to make onsite visits to investment management firms.

Source: SEC Division of Investment Management Guidance, August 2013, 2013-05.

SEC Approves Registration Rules for Municipal Advisors

State and local governments that issue municipal bonds frequently rely on advisors to help them decide how and when to issue the securities and how to invest proceeds from the sales. Prior to passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, municipal advisors were not required to register with the SEC. This left many municipalities relying on advice from unregulated advisors. After the Dodd-Frank Act became law, the SEC established a temporary registration regime for municipal advisors that prohibited any municipal advisor from providing advice to, or soliciting, municipal entities or other covered persons without being registered. More than 1,100 municipal advisors have since registered with the SEC. The SEC recently adopted final rules that establish a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors.

Registered municipal advisors will also likely be subject to additional new regulation from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). In September 2011, the MSRB withdrew several rule proposals pertaining to municipal advisors pending adoption by the SEC of a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors. Among the proposals was a rule regulating political contributions by municipal advisors. The MSRB had previously indicated that it would resubmit the withdrawn rule proposals once a final definition of the term “municipal advisor” was adopted by the SEC.

Proposed Rule

In 2010, the SEC proposed a rule governing the permanent registration process. The proposal defined “municipal advisor” broadly and would have required municipal advisor registration of appointed board members of municipalities and people providing investment advice on all public funds. The SEC received more than 1,000 comment letters on the proposal, most of which raised concerns about the broad reach of the proposal.

Final Rule

The final rule requires a municipal advisor to register with the SEC if it:

  • provides advice on the issuance of municipal securities or about certain “investment strategies” or municipal derivatives; or
  • undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person.

The rule clarifies who is and is not a “municipal advisor” and offers guidance on when a person is providing “advice” for purposes of the municipal advisor definition. The rule exempts employees and appointed officials of municipal entities from registration and limits the type of “investment strategies” that will result in municipal advisor status. Additionally, instead of the proposed approach that would have required individuals associated with registered municipal advisory firms to register separately, the final rule requires firms to furnish information about these individuals.

Defined Terms

Advice. A person is providing “advice” to a municipal entity or an “obligated person” based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, including whether the advice:

  • involves a recommendation to a municipal entity;
  • is particularized to the specific needs of a municipal entity; or
  • relates to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities.

Advice, however, does not include providing certain general information.

An “obligated person” is an entity such as a non-profit university or non-profit hospital that borrows the proceeds from a municipal securities offering and is obligated by contract or other arrangement to repay all or some portion of the amount borrowed.

Investment Strategies. A person providing advice to a municipal entity or an “obligated person” with respect to “investment strategies” only has to register if such advice relates to:

  • the investment of proceeds of municipal securities;
  • the investment of municipal escrow funds; or
  • municipal derivatives.

Exemptions from the Municipal Advisor Definition

The following persons conducting the specified activities would not be required to register as a municipal advisor:

Registered Investment Advisers. Registered investment advisers and associated persons do not have to register if they provide investment advice in their capacities as registered investment advisers, such as providing advice regarding the investment of the proceeds of municipal securities or municipal escrow investments.

This exemption does not apply to advice on the structure, timing, and terms of issues of municipal securities or municipal derivatives. The SEC considers advice in these areas as outside the focus of investment adviser regulation.

Independent Registered Municipal Advisor. Persons who provide advice in circumstances in which a municipal entity has an independent registered municipal advisor with respect to the same aspects of a municipal financial product or issuance of municipal securities do not have to register, provided that certain requirements are met and certain disclosures are made.

Banks. Banks do not have to register to the extent they provide advice on certain identified banking products and services, such as investments held in deposit accounts, extensions of credit, funds held in a sweep account or investments made by a bank acting in the capacity of bond indenture trustee or similar capacity.

This exemption does not apply to banks that engage in other municipal advisory activities, such as providing advice on the issuance of municipal securities or municipal derivatives, in part because municipal derivatives were a source of significant losses by municipalities in the financial crisis.

Underwriters. Brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers serving as underwriters do not have to register if their advisory activities involve the structure, timing and terms of a particular issue of municipal securities.

Registered Commodity Trading Advisor. Registered commodity trading advisors and their associated persons do not have to register if the advice they provide relates to swaps.

Swap Dealers. Registered swap dealers do not have to register as municipal advisors if they provide advice with respect to swaps in circumstances in which a municipal entity is represented by an independent advisor.

Public Officials and Employees. Public officials do not have to register to the extent that they are acting within the scope of their official capacity. This exemption addresses an unintended consequence of the proposed rule that generated significant public comment and created the impression that public officials and municipal employees would be covered if they provided “internal” advice.

This exemption covers persons serving as members of a governing body, an advisory board, a committee, or acting in a similar official capacity as an official of a municipal entity or an obligated person. For instance, it covers:

  • members of a city council, whether elected or appointed, who act in their official capacity; and
  • members of a board of trustees of a public or private non-profit university acting in their official capacity, where the university is an obligated person by virtue of borrowing proceeds of municipal bonds issued by a state governmental educational authority.

Similarly, this exemption covers employees of a municipal entity or an obligated person to the extent that they act within the scope of their employment.

Attorneys. Attorneys do not have to register if they are providing legal advice or traditional legal services with respect to the issuance of municipal securities or municipal financial products.

This exemption does not apply to advice that is primarily financial in nature or to an attorney representing himself or herself as a financial advisor or financial expert on municipal advisory activities.

Accountants. Accountants do not have to register if they are providing accounting services that include audit or other attest services, preparation of financial statements, or issuance of letters for underwriters.

Registration Forms

The final rule requires municipal advisory firms to file the following through EDGAR:

  • Form MA to register as a municipal advisor; and
  • Form MA-I for each individual associated with the firm who engages in municipal advisory activities.

The temporary registration regime will remain in place until December 31, 2014. The new rule requires municipal advisors to register on a staggered basis beginning July 1, 2014. The expiration date of the temporary rules will be extended in order to allow municipal advisors to continue to remain temporarily registered during the staggered compliance period.

Sources: SEC Approves Registration Rules for Municipal Advisors, SEC Press Release 2013-185 (September 18, 2013); Registration of Municipal Advisors, SEC Release No. 34-70462 (September 18, 2013).

SEC Eliminates the Prohibition on General Solicitation and General Advertising in Certain Private Offerings to Accredited Investors

As we reported in our July Client Alert, the SEC amended Regulation D to implement a Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) requirement to lift the ban on general solicitation and general advertising for certain private offerings.

JOBS Act

Congress passed the JOBS Act in 2012, which directed the SEC to remove the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising for securities offerings relying on Rule 506, provided that sales are limited to accredited investors and an issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that all purchasers are accredited investors.

While issuers will be able to widely solicit and advertise for potential investors, the JOBS Act required the SEC to adopt rules that “require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, using such methods as determined by the Commission.” In other words, there is no restriction on who an issuer can solicit, but an issuer faces restrictions on who is permitted to purchase its securities.

Rule 506(c)

The addition of 506(c) to the existing Rule 506 permits issuers, including hedge funds and other private funds, to use general solicitation and general advertising to offer their securities provided that:

  • all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors (as defined in Rule 501);
  • the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the investors are accredited investors;
  • all other conditions of the Rule 506 exemption are met; and
  • Form D is completed and the box is checked indicating that Rule 506(c) is being relied upon.

Verification of Accredited Investor Status

Under the new rules, the issuer will need to take reasonable steps to verify that each investor is accredited. Whether the steps taken are “reasonable” will be a principles-based determination by the issuer, in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction. The SEC noted that the issuer should consider the nature of the purchaser and the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering; and the terms of the offering, such as a minimum investment amount.

In response to comments received with respect to the SEC’s original rule proposal, the amendment to Rule 506 also includes a non-exclusive list of methods that issuers may use to verify that purchasers are accredited investors. The methods described in the final rule include the following:

  • Verification of Income. Review IRS forms filed for last two years and obtain a written representation of expected income for the current year.
  • Verification of Net Worth. Review documentation related to assets (bank and brokerage statements, CDs and independent appraisal reports) and liabilities (credit reports).
  • Third Party Verification. Obtain a written confirmation that a person is an accredited investor from a broker-dealer, investment adviser, attorney or CPA.
  • Existing Accredited Security Holder. For any investor who invested in an issuer’s prior Rule 506 offering as an accredited investor and remains an investor, obtain a written certification (at the time of a Rule 506(c) sale) that he or she still qualifies as an accredited investor.

Preservation of Existing Rule

The existing provisions of Rule 506 as a separate exemption are not affected by the final rule. Issuers conducting Rule 506 offerings without the use of general solicitation or general advertising can continue to conduct securities offerings in the same manner and aren’t subject to the new verification rule.

Form D

In connection with these changes, Form D has been amended to require issuers to indicate whether they are relying on 506(c), which permits general solicitation and advertising in a Rule 506 offering.

The rule amendments became effective September 23, 2013.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings, SEC Release No. IA-3624 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Adopts Rule to Disqualify “Bad Actors” from Rule 506 Offerings

The SEC recently approved amendments to Rule 506 to set forth the “bad actor” (commonly known as “bad boy”) provisions that could disqualify issuers from relying on the rule. The Dodd-Frank Act directed the SEC to adopt the amendments in order to prevent issuers from relying on the Rule 506 safe harbor if certain “bad actors” were involved in the offering.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC approved disqualifications under Rule 506 that are substantially similar to the disqualifications found in other securities regulations. Persons covered by the bad boy provisions include: issuers; directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners or managing members of issuers; beneficial owners of 20% or more of the issuer’s voting equity securities; investment managers to an issuer that is a pooled investment fund and directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners or managing members of the investment manager; promoters connected with the issuer; persons compensated for soliciting investors as well as the directors, officers, general partners or managing members of any compensated solicitor. The disqualifying events include:

  • securities-related criminal convictions;
  • securities-related court injunctions and restraining orders;
  • final orders of a state securities commission, state insurance commission, state or federal bank, savings association or credit union regulator or the CFTC barring an individual from association with regulated entities or from engaging in securities, insurance or banking business or finding a violation of any law pertaining to fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct;
  • SEC disciplinary orders relating to brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, investment advisers and investment companies and their associated persons;
  • SEC cease-and-desist orders related to violations of certain anti-fraud provisions and registration requirements of the federal securities laws;
  • suspension or expulsion from membership in, or suspension or bar from associating with a member of, a securities self-regulatory organization; and
  • SEC stop orders pertaining to the filing of a registration statement or the suspension of an exemption.

Reasonable Care Exception. Under this exception, an issuer would not lose the benefit of the Rule 506 safe harbor if it can show that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering.

Disclosure of Pre-Existing Disqualifying Events. Disqualification applies only for disqualifying events that occur after September 23, 2013, the effective date of this rule. Matters that existed before the effective date of the rule and would otherwise be disqualifying are subject to a mandatory disclosure requirement to investors.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Disqualification of Felons and Other Bad Actors from Rule 506 Offerings, SEC Release No. 33-9414 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Proposes Amendments to Private Offering Rules (Regulation D and Form D)

In partial response to the many comments that the SEC received with respect to its proposed JOBS Act amendments to Rule 506, the SEC recently proposed the following amendments to the private offering rules.

Advance Notice of Sale. Under the proposal, issuers that intend to engage in general solicitation as part of a Rule 506 offering would be required to file the Form D at least 15 calendar days before engaging in general solicitation for the offering. Also, within 30 days of completing an offering, issuers would be required to update the information contained in the Form D and indicate that the offering has ended.

Additional Information about the Issuer and the Offering. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to provide additional information such as:

  • types of general solicitation used;
  • methods used to verify accredited investor status;
  • publicly available website;
  • controlling persons;
  • industry group;
  • asset size;
  • breakdown of investor types (accredited/non-accredited and natural person/entity) and amounts invested; and
  • breakdown of use of proceeds.

Disqualification. Under the proposal, an issuer would be disqualified from using the Rule 506 exemption in any new offering if the issuer or its affiliates did not comply with the Form D filing requirements in a Rule 506 offering.

Legends and Disclosures. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to include certain legends or cautionary statements in any written general solicitation materials used in a Rule 506 offering. The legends would be intended to inform potential investors that the offering is limited to accredited investors and that certain potential risks may be associated with such offerings.

In addition, if the issuer is a private fund and includes information about past performance in its written general solicitation materials, it would be required to provide additional information in the materials to highlight the limitations on the usefulness of this type of information. The issuer also would need to highlight the difficulty of comparing this information with past performance information of other funds. The proposal also requests public comment on whether other manner and content restrictions should apply to written general solicitation materials used by private funds.

Submission of Written General Solicitation Materials to the SEC. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to submit written general solicitation materials to the SEC through an intake page on the SEC website. Materials submitted in this manner would not be available to the general public. As proposed, this requirement would be temporary, expiring after two years.

Guidance to Private Funds about Misleading Statements. In its current form, Rule 156 under the Securities Act provides guidance on when information in mutual fund sales literature could be fraudulent or misleading for purposes of the federal securities laws. Under the proposal, the rule would be amended to apply to the sales literature of private funds.

Comments on the proposal originally were due on September 23, 2013. However, “in light of the public interest,” the SEC re-opened the comment period until October 30, 2013.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156, SEC Release No. IC-30595 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Charges Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability

The SEC charged an investment adviser and its former owner for misleading a mutual fund’s board of directors about the firm’s ability to conduct algorithmic currency trading so the board would approve the adviser’s contract to manage the fund.

The case arises out of an initiative by the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit to focus on the “15(c) process” – a reference to Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act that requires a fund’s board to annually evaluate the fund’s advisory agreements. Advisers must provide the board with truthful information necessary to make that evaluation.

“It is critical that investment advisers provide truthful information to the directors of the registered funds they advise,” said Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Both boards and advisers have fiduciary duties that must be fulfilled to ensure that a fund’s investors are not harmed.”

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleged that Chariot Advisors LLC and Elliott L. Shifman misled the fund’s board about the nature, extent, and quality of services that the firm could provide. In two presentations before the board, Shifman misrepresented that his firm would implement the fund’s investment strategy by using a portion of the fund’s assets to engage in algorithmic currency trading. Chariot fund’s initial investment objective was to achieve absolute positive returns in all market cycles by investing approximately 80% of the fund’s assets under management in short-term fixed income securities, and using the remaining 20% to engage in algorithmic currency trading.

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Chariot Advisors did not have an algorithm capable of conducting such currency trading. This was particularly significant because in the absence of an operating history the directors focused instead on Chariot Advisors’ reliance on models when the board evaluated the advisory contract. Even though Shifman believed that the fund’s currency trading needed to achieve a 25 to 30% return to succeed, Shifman allegedly did not disclose to the board that Chariot Advisors had no algorithm or model capable of achieving such a return.

The SEC alleges that for at least the first two months after the fund was launched, Chariot Advisors did not use an algorithm model to perform the fund’s currency trading as represented to the board, but instead hired an individual trader who was allowed to use discretion on trade selection and execution. According to the order, the trader used a technical analysis, rules-based approach for trading that combined market indicators with her own intuition.

The SEC further alleges that the misconduct by Shifman and Chariot Advisors caused misrepresentations and omissions in the Chariot fund’s registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and viewed by investors.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the order are true and whether any remedial sanctions are appropriate.

Sources: SEC Charges North Carolina-Based Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability, SEC Press Release 2013-162 (August 21, 2013); In the Matter of Chariot Advisors, LLC and Elliott L. Shifman, Investment Company Act Release No. 30655 (August 21, 2013).

Article By:

of

New Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules to Protect Telephone Consumers from Autodial/Robocalls

Lewis & Roca

On October 16, 2013, new Federal Communication Commission rules took effect to further protect consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). See 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The changes ordered by the FCC are designed to protect consumers from unwanted autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls, also known as “telemarketing robocalls.” The new TCPA rules accomplish four main things: (1) require prior written consent for all autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines; (2) require mechanisms to be in place that allow consumers to opt out of future robocalls even if during the middle of a current robocall; (3) limit permissible abandoned calls on a per-calling campaign basis in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns; and (4) exempt from TCPA requirements calls made to residential lines by health care related entities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. None of the FCC’s actions change the requirements for prerecorded messages that are non-telemarketing, informational calls such as calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt organizations, calls for political purposes, and calls for other non-commercial purposes including those to people in emergency situations.

Under the FCC’s new rules, “prior written consent” will require two things: a clear and conspicuous disclosure that by providing consent the consumer will receive auto-dialed or prerecorded calls on behalf of a specific seller, and a clear an unambiguous acknowledgement that the consumer agrees to receive such calls at the mobile number. The content and form of consent may include an electronic or digital form of signature such as the FTC has recognized under the E-SIGN Act. See Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. However, prior written consent may be terminated at any time. In addition, the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(v)(A)(ii).

Read the full rule here.

Article By:

A Tip For Dealing with Automatic Gratuities in 2014

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

A new Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“) rule, set to take effect in January 1, 2014, may eliminate a common practice in the restaurant industry. Often, an automatic gratuity, normally 18%, is added to the bill of large parties. Automatic gratuities were adopted by restaurant employers as a means for ensuring that servers do not get stiffed on expensive bills. Servers heavily rely on tips to supplement a salary that is often times lower than the federal minimum wage.

Traditionally, automatically-added gratuities have been classified as employee tips. As such, it is up to the employees to report the money as income. Starting in January, automatic gratuities will be categorized as “service charges” – making them regular wages and subject to payroll tax withholdings. Employers will have to track and report any automatic tips and will be required to include the “service charge” payments in employees’ W-2 wages. Further, employers will no longer be able to count these tips as a credit to reduce their minimum wage obligation. It is a lose-lose situation because servers will not see their automatic gratuity money until payday; making it more difficult to survive on a small salary.

Many major chains, like Olive Garden and Red Lobster, have eliminated automatic gratuities in response to the approaching deadline. For restaurants that opt to keep the automatic gratuity system, payroll accounting will become much more complicated. Tips from automatic gratuities will have to be factored into hourly pay rates, which means hourly rates could vary based on how many large parties are served in any given hour.

It would be wise for smaller restaurants to follow the chain restaurants’ lead by eliminating automatic gratuities altogether. Doing so will not only to lessen compliance requirements and tax burdens, but will also keep employees happy by ensuring that the tips they earn can immediately be pocketed.

Article By:

 of

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Adopts Rule Amendments to Implement JOBS Act Provisions for the Elimination of Prohibitions Against General Solicitation in Private Offerings

VedderPriceLogo

On July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted final amendments to Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act in order to implement Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act directed the SEC to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation in private security offerings made under Rule 506 provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. New Rule 506(c) permits issuers to use general solicitation and general advertising in private security offerings made under Rule 506 provided that: (1) the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that investors are accredited investors; (2) each investor qualifies, or the issuer reasonably believes that each investor qualifies, as an accredited investor at the time of the sale of securities; and (3) all terms and conditions of Rules 501, 502(a) and 502(d) are satisfied.

The SEC noted that whether the steps taken by an issuer to verify accredited investor status are “reasonable” is an objective determination based on the particular facts and circumstances of each investor and transaction. Factors to be considered in this analysis are:

(1) the nature of the purchaser and type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be;

(2) the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; and

(3) the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering, and the terms of the offering, such as the minimum investment amount.

In response to commenters’ requests, Rule 506(c) also provides a non-exclusive list of specific methods that investors may use to verify an investor’s accredited investor status. This list includes:

(1) with respect to verifying income, review copies of any IRS form that reports income (e.g., W-2, Form 1099 or a copy of a filed Form 1040), along with a written representation that the investor will likely continue to earn the necessary income in the current year;

(2) with respect to verifying net worth, review copies of bank statements, brokerage or other statements of securities holdings, or CDs for evidence of sufficient net worth, along with a credit report for evidence of total liabilities; or

(3) obtain a written confirmation from a broker-dealer, an investment adviser, a licensed attorney or a certified public accountant that such entity or person has taken reasonable steps to verify the investor’s accredited investor status.

Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act also directed the SEC to revise Rule 144A(d)(1) to provide that securities resold pursuant to Rule 144A may be offered, including by means of general solicitation, to persons other than  qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) as long as the securities are sold only to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe is a QIB. The SEC adopted amendments to Rule 144A as directed under the JOBS Act.

The rule amendments became effective on September 23, 2013.

 of