Publications
Expense-Related Issues Continue to Trigger SEC Enforcement Actions
SRZ Private Funds Regulatory Update
August 2020
On Aug. 7, 2020, the SEC sanctioned Rialto Capital Management for failing to properly disclose and allocate certain costs and expenses.[1] Rialto undertook to perform, for compensation, “third party tasks” that other advisers would have caused their funds to outsource. Rialto agreed to perform these tasks at favorable rates, but the SEC alleged that Rialto (i) did not perform any analysis (after the first year) to support claims that their rates compared favorably to market rates; (ii) did not charge these expenses to its co-investment vehicles; and (iii) did not disclose that it increased an “overhead factor” over time. Therefore, in spite of having the expense charges approved by an advisory committee, Rialto’s actions and omissions resulted in a settlement involving restitution of approximately $3 million, a fine of $350,000, and SEC findings that Rialto violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. In addition, the Commission found that Rialto failed to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and its rules.
Although the settlement does not represent any new SEC initiative, it is yet another entry in an increasingly long line of actions against private fund managers for errors in (over)charging expenses to fund clients. Compliance and finance personnel at investment advisers should ensure that they budget time to review the processes and disclosures around the expense allocation process, and should expect to be questioned on their processes and determinations.
This article appeared in the August 2020 edition of SRZ’s Private Funds Regulatory Update. To read the full Update, click here.
[1] See In the Matter of Rialto Capital Management, LLC, Release No. 5558 (Aug. 7, 2020), available here.
Related Insights
Alerts
On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted on Jan. 1, 2021, requires certain legal entities (known as “Reporting Companies”) to file beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).[1] Judge Burke’s 53-page opinion concluded that “the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”[2] Judge Burke also issued a final judgment permanently enjoining the US Government from enforcing the CTA against the two plaintiffs —the National Small Business Association, a non-profit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies, and one of its members.[3]
Alerts
On Feb. 15, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) proposed its long-anticipated rule, which will subject certain investment advisers to significant anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing-related compliance obligations (“Proposed Rule”). Specifically, the Proposed Rule requires certain investment advisers to (i) establish and implement anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) programs, (ii) file suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) with FinCEN, and (iii) fulfill recordkeeping, information sharing, investor due diligence and other AML/CFT-related obligations mandated by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).[1] The Proposed Rule applies to investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), also known as registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and exempt reporting advisers (“ERAs”) (collectively, “Covered Advisers”). The public comment period will remain open until April 15, 2024.
Alerts
On Jan. 10, 2024, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its final rule on employee or independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for purposes of minimum wage and overtime. The final rule became effective March 11, 2024.
Alerts
On Feb. 6, the Staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management (“Staff”) issued an updated FAQ (“FAQ”) with respect to Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1 (“Marketing Rule”), excerpted below,[1] addressing the presentation of gross and net internal rates of return (“IRRs”) when the fund uses subscription lines to fund investments. Although the Staff, for quite some time, has focused during examinations on the methodology used to calculate gross and net IRRs when subscription lines are used to fund investments, the amended Marketing Rule that went into effect in November 2022[2] specifically requires that gross and net performance be calculated and presented using the same methodology and over the same period of time. In the FAQ, the Staff expressed its view that certain historical performance reporting practices are no longer permitted under the Marketing Rule, even with clear disclosure regarding the differences in methodologies utilized to calculate the net and gross performance shown.
Alerts
On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted on Jan. 1, 2021, requires certain legal entities (known as “Reporting Companies”) to file beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).[1] Judge Burke’s 53-page opinion concluded that “the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”[2] Judge Burke also issued a final judgment permanently enjoining the US Government from enforcing the CTA against the two plaintiffs —the National Small Business Association, a non-profit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies, and one of its members.[3]
Alerts
On Feb. 15, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) proposed its long-anticipated rule, which will subject certain investment advisers to significant anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing-related compliance obligations (“Proposed Rule”). Specifically, the Proposed Rule requires certain investment advisers to (i) establish and implement anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) programs, (ii) file suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) with FinCEN, and (iii) fulfill recordkeeping, information sharing, investor due diligence and other AML/CFT-related obligations mandated by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).[1] The Proposed Rule applies to investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), also known as registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and exempt reporting advisers (“ERAs”) (collectively, “Covered Advisers”). The public comment period will remain open until April 15, 2024.
Alerts
On Jan. 10, 2024, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its final rule on employee or independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for purposes of minimum wage and overtime. The final rule became effective March 11, 2024.
Alerts
On Feb. 6, the Staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management (“Staff”) issued an updated FAQ (“FAQ”) with respect to Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1 (“Marketing Rule”), excerpted below,[1] addressing the presentation of gross and net internal rates of return (“IRRs”) when the fund uses subscription lines to fund investments. Although the Staff, for quite some time, has focused during examinations on the methodology used to calculate gross and net IRRs when subscription lines are used to fund investments, the amended Marketing Rule that went into effect in November 2022[2] specifically requires that gross and net performance be calculated and presented using the same methodology and over the same period of time. In the FAQ, the Staff expressed its view that certain historical performance reporting practices are no longer permitted under the Marketing Rule, even with clear disclosure regarding the differences in methodologies utilized to calculate the net and gross performance shown.
Alerts
On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted on Jan. 1, 2021, requires certain legal entities (known as “Reporting Companies”) to file beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).[1] Judge Burke’s 53-page opinion concluded that “the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”[2] Judge Burke also issued a final judgment permanently enjoining the US Government from enforcing the CTA against the two plaintiffs —the National Small Business Association, a non-profit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies, and one of its members.[3]