Posted on December 9, 2010 by Pay-to-Play Blogger

Additional Settlements in New York Pension Fund Investigation

New York State Attorney General and Governor-Elect Andrew Cuomo has announced additional settlements in his investigation of "pay-to-play" practices and conflicts of interest at public pension funds. Veteran Albany lobbyist Patricia Lynch Associates, Inc. will pay a $500,000 fine and be banned for a period of five years from appearing before the State Comptroller's Office. The State Comptroller is the sole trustee of New York State's approximately $133 billion Common Retirement Fund (CRF).

Cuomo's investigation showed that Lynch, a former top aide of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, arranged contributions to former Comptroller Alan Hevesi's campaign. She also assisted in securing a consulting contract for the daughter of the Comptroller's Chief of Staff and provided thousands of dollars in gifts to the daughter. Lynch met with the Comptroller and with senior staff in his office to discuss proposed investments by her lobbying clients. She and a partner, L.W. Strategies, also received fees from a client for lobbying the New York City Police and Fire pension fund.

Cuomo also announced a settlement with fund advisor Aldus Equity, a Dallas-based private equity firm, which includes a $1 million restitution payment. The agreement concerns the firm’s responsibility for securities fraud engaged in by former Aldus principal Saul Meyer, who pleaded guilty in October 2009 to a Martin Act securities fraud felony charge for his conduct.

At the time of Meyer's conduct, Aldus was a leading outside advisor to several public pension funds including the state and NYC funds. Meyer is scheduled to be sentenced in the criminal case later this month.

Brief Summary of NY Rules / Reforms:

- The NYS Common Retirement Fund ("CRF") has banned placement agents, meaning paid intermediaries and registered lobbyists, regarding investments with the Fund. The ban includes entities compensated on a flat fee, contingent fee or any other basis (contingent lobbying fees are never permitted in New York).

- The NYS Comptroller has issued an executive order that prohibits the CRF from hiring, investing with or committing to any Investment Adviser after a contribution has been made by the Investment Adviser or any Covered Associate of an Investment Adviser (i.e. general partner, managing member, executive officer) who has made a political contribution to the State Comptroller or a candidate for State Comptroller. There is a limited exception that allows individuals to contribute no more than $250 to their own representatives. The prohibition applies to contributions made within the past two years. The definition of "Investment Adviser" includes investment advisers registered with the SEC and those investment advisers exempt from registration with the SEC.

- The NYS Comptroller has created a pension fund task force and a special commission, co-chaired by Mayor Koch and Frank Zarb, to review operations of the State Comptroller. They have also hired special ethics counsel and created an Inspector General position. Legislation has been introduced to codify some of the reforms that were promulgated by Executive Order.

- In New York City, there is a ban on placement agents for private equity. In June of 2010, Comptroller Liu announced a series of new disclosure requirements for those who do business with the City pension system, including both the Teachers Retirement System and the New York City Employees Retirement System ("NYCERS"). For example, investment managers must disclose all contacts with the City Comptroller's Office; must certify that no placement agent was used in connection with securing private equity; and must disclose all fees.

- Placement agents and other third parties who are engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions are required to be licensed and affiliated with broker-dealers that are regulated by an entity now know as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"). See, Attorney General's Assurance of Discontinuance In the Matter of Patricia Lynch Associates, Inc., p. 4, citing sections 3(a)(4) and 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. To obtain such licenses, agents are required to pass the "Series 7" or equivalent examination administered by FINRA. Id. In addition, the Martin Act (NY General Business Law Article 23-A) requires that all dealers, brokers, or salesmen (e.g., placement agents) who sell or purchase securities within or from New York State must file broker-dealer registration statements with the Attorney General. Id., citing New York General Business Law section 359-e(3).

Contributed by Kelly Lamendola, Esq.
Albany, NY
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on November 19, 2010 by Stefan Passantino

California takes on CalPERS - Causing CalPERS to Respond to California

One of the most prominent public displays of the once secretive world of pay-to-play in recent history surrounded the California Public Employees' Retirement System (affectionately referred to as “CalPERS”). As many will recall, CalPERS’ board of directors was subjected to significant scrutiny as a result of investigations in New York that demonstrated an all-too comfortable secret relationship between placement agents, investment firms, and public retirement systems. In California, CalPERS came to learn that several placement firms led by a former board member had received millions of dollars in service fees for helping certain investment firms land contracts to manage their funds.

As sure as night follows day, public political scandal inevitably begets additional legislation; even if the genesis of the scandal was already illegal before coming to light. One of the easiest ways to accomplish a desired move towards transparency is to identify some new form of private interaction with government and label it “lobbying”. California’s response to the CalPERS scandal is no exception. Earlier this year, the California General Assembly enacted Assembly Bill 1743 designed to make placement agents for public retirement systems register as lobbyists and comply with all attendant restrictions, registration and disclosure requirements.

To show it was serious, Assembly Bill 1743 imposes additional criminal sanctions upon California’s existing regulatory scheme for lobbyist disclosure.

The legislation enjoyed considerable support from the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), other municipal public employees unions and good government groups. The legislation passed through both state legislative bodies this past August before being signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2010. As a result the bill is set to take effect on January 1, 2011.

Perhaps a day late, and surely a dollar short, CalPERS has announced that it will now require contractors to reveal whether they are using placement agents to seek business with the pension fund. CalPERS has further required that those using such agents must disclose payment terms, any “financial or familial” relationship with current or former board members, as well as any gifts or other items of value offered to CalPERS.

Consider the CalPERS barn door officially closed.
 
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 13, 2010 by Allix Magaziner

SEC's Placement Agent Probe Continues

Since the SEC passed its pay-to-play rule in June, (reported on here), the feds have clearly been looking for a target to "make an example out of" as a way of showing they are serious about pay-to-play. A sacrificial lamb appears to have been found as SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan has put the public on notice that the SEC will be taking an increased interest in the role placement agents play following pay-to-play scandals in other states. Recently, the SEC opened an "informal inquiry" into the Kentucky Retirement Systems' ("KRS'") use of placement agents as a result of one of KRS's own internal audits. KRS oversees a $12.5 billion fund for state and county retirees.

KRS's audit identified one well-connected placement agent, Glen Sergeon (say it with me: "Baaaaaa"), as having done more work for the fund from 2004 to 2009 than any other agent. While the fund found no evidence of illegal activity, due to the possibility of perceived appearance of preferential treatment, KRS's compliance officer recommended that pension staff be required to publicly disclose all personal connections with placement agents going forward - a step beyond the policy the pension program put in place last year requiring disclosure of placement agent names and fees paid. The KRS Board of Trustees is also speaking with state auditors to conduct an independent review of KRS's use of placement agents.

On September 9, the SEC's Division of Enforcement in New York sent a letter to KRS requesting KRS produce information about payments to placement agents used by the fund, no later than September 22. Specifically, the SEC requested a copy of the internal audit, as well as records held by KRS that contain placement agents' fees. The SEC said that no one is accused of wrongdoing. I'm sure Glen Sergeon begged to differ when KRS Trustee and investment specialist, Christopher Tobe, who supports a ban on placement agents (See also See also Comment Letter of Kentucky Retirement Systems Trustee Chris Tobe Sept. 18, 2009, "Tobe Letter") stated, "I believe the SEC shares my concerns that 12 separate deals of over $600,000 [per placement agent] were struck - five over $1 million - that may imply more than simple commissions. I also believe that the fact the staff and selected trustees concealed the fact we had placement agents for over six years is of concern." KRS's nine-member Board of Trustees is holding a special meeting today to discuss the SEC's letter.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 7, 2010 by Allix Magaziner

Federal Pay-to-Play Rule is Here to Stay

On Wednesday, June 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission unanimously approved the final text of a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 directed at preventing pay to play practices by investment advisers. In response to 250 comment letters, with divergent views on the issue, the Commission revised certain provisions of the rule it proposed last year but largely kept intact its initial proposal of regulations designed to ensure that investment advisors are prohibited from using campaign contributions to steer municipal investment business. Oddly enough, the Commission received no comment letters from the class of plan beneficiaries that it sought to protect with the proposed rule, although two public interest groups strongly supported the proposed revisions.

The new rule has three key elements:

1) It prohibits investment advisors from providing advisory services for compensation—either directly or through a pooled investment vehicle—for two years, if the advisor or certain of its executives or employees have made a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the advisor;

2) It prohibits advisory firms and certain executives and employees from soliciting or coordinating campaign contributions from others (a practice referred to as “bundling”) for any elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser. It also prohibits solicitation and coordination of payments to political parties in the state or locality where the adviser is seeking business; and

3) It prohibits investment advisors from paying third parties, such as placement agents, from soliciting a government client on behalf of the investment adviser, unless that third party is an SEC-registered investment advisor or broker/dealer subject to similar pay to play restrictions.

Finally, the rule contains a catch-all, “don’t let the lawyers find a loophole” provision, which prohibits acts done indirectly, which if done directly, would result in a violation of the rule (such as old favorites like funneling contributions through an investment adviser’s attorneys, spouses or affiliated companies).

JUSTIFIED BY PAST ABUSES

The Commission justified its approval of the new rule by referencing the perceived past success of MSRB rule G-37: “Our years of experience with MSRB rule G-37 suggests that the ‘strong medicine’ provided by that rule has both significantly curbed participation in pay to play and provides a reasonable cooling off period to mitigate the effect of a political contribution.” The Commission further rationalized the need for a tough federal rule based on its belief that neither “codes of ethics [nor] compliance procedures alone would be adequate to stop pay to play practices, particularly when the advisor or senior officers of the advisor are involved...” Under the rule, investment advisers remain obligated to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent violation of the rule. The Commission affirmed “that an adviser’s implementation of a strong compliance program will reduce the likelihood, and therefore costs, of inadvertent violations.”

ANTICIPATING A FIRST AMENDMENT LEGAL CHALLENGE?

In the discussion portion of the rule, the Commission addressed comment letters and also tackled First Amendment concerns, explaining that the new rule is closely drawn to accomplish the goal of preventing quid pro quo arrangements while avoiding unnecessary burdens on the protected speech and association rights of investment advisers. The Commission pointed out “…the rule imposes no restrictions on activities such as making independent expenditures to express support for candidates, volunteering, making speeches, and other conduct.” The Commission distinguished the recent Citizens United Case, by stating: “Citizens United deals with certain independent expenditures (rather than contributions to candidates), which are not implicated by our rule.”

 

PLACEMENT AGENTS ARE NOT BANNED BUT SUBJECT TO FINRA REGULATION

The Commission, persuaded by comment letters, retreated from an outright ban on investment advisers hiring so-called placement agents. As outlined above, the regulations approved allow advisors to continue hiring placement agents provided those agents are registered with the SEC or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and subject to pay-to-play restrictions. The restriction on investment advisers using unregistered placement agents will not take effect for one year, in part to give FINRA, which has experience enforcing the MSRB rules, time to propose such rules. Andrew Donohue, who heads the SEC division of investment management, said that the FINRA regulations will be “at least as stringent” as his agency’s rules. Nevertheless, SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro warned in an open meeting Wednesday that if the SEC finds any signs of abuse of the new rule, it may still consider an outright ban. “If the Commission determines that third-party placement agents continue to inappropriately influence the selection of investment advisers for government clients even under our enhanced rule, I expect we would consider the imposition of a full ban,” said Schapiro.

SOME CONTRIBUTIONS PERMITTED - BUT HAVE AN ACCEPTED PAY TO PLAY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM IN PLACE

The Commission also attempted to temper the rule by providing certain exceptions to the prohibition on contributions. Contributions of $350 or less per election per candidate can be ignored “de minimus” if the contributor is entitled to vote for the recipient and contributions of $150 or less per election per candidate are permitted even if the contributor is not entitled to vote for the candidate. In addition, an adviser may apply to the Commission for an order exempting it from the two-year compensation ban. The SEC emphasized that a key factor in determining whether to exempt a firm in circumstances in which a violation occurs will be whether the firm has adopted and implemented an adequate pay to play compliance program.  As the Commission noted: “While we have designed the rule to reduce its impact, investment advisers are best positioned to protect these clients by developing and enforcing robust compliance programs designed to prevent contributions from triggering the two-year time out.”

The effective date of the new rule will be 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. As noted above, investment advisers may no longer use third parties to solicit government business except in compliance with the rule on one year after the Effective Date. Advisers may need to continue to provide advice for a reasonable period of time during which a client can seek to obtain advisory services from others. While some commentators urged the Commission to allow advisers to continue to receive fees during the two year time out for services provided pursuant to existing contracts, the Commission responded: “Allowing contracts acquired as a result of political contributions to continue uninterrupted would eviscerate the rule.”

The financial industry remains in the early stages of evaluating the impact this new federal pay to play rule will have on its activities. One thing we all know for certain, federal regulation of pay to play is here to stay.
Tags: , , , , , , ,