By: Jay Gould, Partner, Pillsbury Law
Last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), published its examination priorities for 2013. As we suggested in our Blog posting at that time, the SEC is fixated on examining and bringing enforcement against its newest class of investment adviser – managers of private equity funds. Fast forward four weeks, and we should not be surprised to see that the SEC is doing what they said they would do. Today, the SEC charged two investment advisers at Oppenheimer & Co. with misleading investors about the valuation policies and performance of a private equity fund of funds they manage.
The SEC investigation alleged that Oppenheimer Asset Management and Oppenheimer Alternative Investment Management disseminated misleading quarterly reports and marketing materials, which stated that the Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund I L.P.’s holdings of other private equity funds were valued “based on the underlying managers’ estimated values.” The SEC, however, claimed that the portfolio manager of the Oppenheimer fund actually valued the Oppenheimer fund’s largest investment at a significant markup to the underlying fund manager’s estimated value, a change that made the performance of the Oppenheimer fund appear significantly better as measured by its internal rate of return. As part of the Order entered by the SEC, and without admitting or denying the regulator’s allegations, Oppenheimer agreed to pay more than $2.8 million to settle the SEC’s charges and an additional $132,421 to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.
In its press release, the SEC reiterated its focus on the valuation process, the use of valuations to calculate fees and communicating such valuations to investors and to potential investors for purposes of raising capital. The SEC’s order also claimed that Oppenheimer Asset Management’s written policies and procedures were not reasonably designed to ensure that valuations provided to prospective and existing investors were presented in a manner consistent with written representations to investors and prospective investors. This claim gave rise to an alleged violation of Rule 206(4)-8 (among other rules and statutes) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), the rule that the SEC passed after the Goldstein case permitted many funds to de-register as investment advisers from the SEC.
This case illustrates the new regulatory landscape for private equity fund managers. Many private equity fund managers have not dedicated the time and resources to bringing their organizations in line with the fiduciary driven rules under the Advisers Act. Many of these managers have not implemented the compliance policies and procedures required by the Advisers Act, nor have their Chief Compliance Officers been empowered to enforce such compliance policies and procedures when adopted. Much of this oversight goes to the fact that many private equity fund managers do not have a history of being a regulated entity nor have they actively sought out regulatory counsel in their typical business dealings. Private equity fund managers generally use outside counsel to advise them on their transactional or “deal” work and they often do not receive the advice that a regulated firm needs in order to meet its regulatory obligations. Oppenheimer serves notice that failing to meet these regulatory obligations can have dire consequences.
This article is also part of the Investment Fund Law Blog, authored by Pillsbury Law Attorneys.
This article was published in Opalesque's Private Equity Strategies our monthly research update on the global private equity landscape including all sectors and market caps.