Source: http://hedgefundlawblog.com/category/laws/page/2
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 08:20:56
Document Index: 490390831

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2550', 'art 2580', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 1954', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2550', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 412', '§ 2509', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', 'art 2580', '§ 412', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2520', '§ 2520', '§ 2520', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 412', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580', '§ 2580']

Laws | Hedge Fund Law Blog | Page 2
Hedge Fund Manager Registration to Cost Taxpayers $140 Million (at least)
CBO Calculates Cost of House Hedge Fund Bill
This past week the Congressional Budge Office (“CBO”) released a cost estimate of H.R. 3818, the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009. In a number of private conversations I have had about hedge fund registration over the last 9-12 months one of the issues that was continually raised was appropriate funding for the SEC. As we have seen recently (most notably from the Inspector General’s Madoff report), the SEC’s budget is not large enough to adequately fulfill their investor protection mandate. Adding hedge fund registration would obviously further burden the cash-strapped agency (for more see Schumer Proposal to Double SEC Budget). According to the CBO, and based on the SEC’s estimates that it will need to add 150 employees, the estimated outlays over four years will be equal to $140 million.
However, taxpayers should understand that this assumes that registration will only be required for those managers with at least $150 million in assets under management. At the $150 million AUM level, the CBO expects that 1,300 hedge fund managers would be required to register. The current draft of the Senate hedge fund registration bill calls for managers with $100 million in AUM to register – lowering the AUM exemption threshold will increase the amount of managers required to register. Additionally, there are outstanding political issues. First, it is unclear whether the final bill will require private equity fund managers and venture capital fund managers to register – we do not necessarily understand the arguably arbitrary carve-out for these industries. Second, it is clear that a majority of the state securities commissions are unable and unwilling to be responsible for overseeing managers with up to $100 million in assets. Hedge fund managers who would subject to state oversight would rightly want to be subject to SEC oversight (which does not say much for many state securities commissions). These issues will continue to be addressed during the political sausage-making process.
Of additional interest – the CBO estimates that hedge fund registration is likely to cost around $30,000 per each SEC registrant which is welcome news to investment adviser compliance consultants and hedge fund lawyers!
For full report, please see full CBO Hedge Fund Cost Estimate.
RIA Compliance Overview
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog and provides hedge fund manager registration service through Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.
This entry was posted in Business Issues, compliance, Laws, Legal Resources, News and Commentary, Regulatory Actions, SEC and tagged hedge fund, hedge fund cost, hedge fund manager, hedge fund manager registration, hedge fund registration, hedge fund registration bill, investment adviser, investment adviser registration, Investment Advisor, investment advisor registration, SEC on November 17, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
Hedge Funds and Insider Trading after Galleon
High Profile Case Highlights Issues for Hedge Fund Managers to Consider
Insider trading is now an operational issue for hedge fund managers. The high profile insider trading case involving RR and the Galleon hedge fund has put the spotlight directly on hedge funds again and has also sparked a debate of sorts on the subject. Given the potential severity of penalties for insider trading, it is surprising that we still periodically hear about such cases, but nevertheless it is something that is always going to be there – human nature is not going to change.
As such hedge fund managers need to be prepared to deal with this issue internally (through their compliance procedures) and also will need to be able to communicate how they have addressed this issue to both the regulators and institutional investors. While managers always need to be vigilant in their enforcement of compliance policies and procedures, during this time of heightened insider trading awareness, managers need to be even more vigilant about protecting themselves. As the Galleon liquidation too vividly shows, a lapse in operational oversight can and will take down an entire organization.
Insider Trading Overview and Penalties
We have discussed insider trading before, but as a general matter insider trading refers to the practice of trading securities based on material, non-public information. Whether information is material depends on case law. In general information will be material if “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important” in making an investment decision (see TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976)). Information is non-public if it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to investors generally. An insider is generally defined as officers, directors and employees of a company but it can also refer to a company’s business associates in certain circumstances (i.e. attorneys, accountants, consultants, and banks, and the employees of such organizations). Additionally, persons not considered to be insiders may nevertheless be charged with insider trading if they received tips from insiders – such persons generally are referred to as tippees and the insider is generally referred to as the tipper. [HFLB note: more information on insider trading generally can be found in the discussion of Regulation FD on the SEC website.]
The penalties for insider trading are potentially harsh – censures, cease and desist orders, fines, suspension and/or revocation of securities licenses are all potential penalties. Depending on the severity of the insider trading there may be criminal sanctions in addition to the listed civil penalties. Securities professionals (or other business professionals like an attorney or accountant) may jeopardize their ability to work in their industry if they are caught engaging in insider trading which, for most people, would be a large enough deterrent to engage in such activity.
Addressing Compliance Inside the Firm
Insider trading is usually addressed in the firm’s compliance policies and procedures. Indeed, Section 204A of the Investment Adviser Act of 1940 requires SEC registered investment advisers to maintainpolicies and procedures to detect against insider trading.
Usually such policies and procedures forbid employees from trading on material non-public information (as well as “tipping” others about material non-public information). Additionally, employees typically are required to disclose any non-public material information they receive to the chief compliance officer (“CCO”) of the firm. The employee is generally prohibited from discussing the matter with anyone inside or outside of the firm. The policies and procedures may require the CCO to take some sort of action on the matter. There are a number of different ways that the CCO can handle the situation including ordering a prohibition on trading in the security (including in options, rights and warrants on the security). The CCO may also initiate a review of the personal trading accounts of firm employees. Usually when the CCO is informed of such information the CCO would contact outside counsel to discuss the next course of action.
While many large hedge fund managers are registered as investment advisors with the SEC, many still remain unregistered in reliance on the exemption provided by Section 203(b)(3). With the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act likely to be passed within the next year, managers with a certain amount of AUM (either $100 million or $150 million as it now stands) will be forced to register with the SEC. Of course, this means that such managers will be subject to examination by the SEC and insider trading will be one of the first issues that a manager will likely deal with in an examination.
As we discussed in an earlier insider trading article, the SEC has unabashedly proclaimed war against insider trading and they will be aggressively pursuing any leads which may implicate managers.
Some compliance professionals believe that the SEC comes in with a view that the manager is guilty until proven innocent. While I do not necessarily subscribe to this blanket viewpoint, I do believe that managers, as a best practice, should be able to show the SEC the steps they have taken to ensure that compliance with insider trading prohibitions is a top priority of the firm. The firm and CCO should be prepared to describe their policies and structures that are in place to deal with this issue.
Institutional Standpoint
Potentially more important than how a firm deals with the SEC, is how a firm describes their internal compliance procedures to institutional investors. The question then becomes, how are institutional investors going to address this risk with regard to the managers they allocate to – what will change?
Right now it appears a bit unclear. Over the past week I have talked with a number of different groups who are involved hedge fund compliance, hedge fund consulting, and hedge fund due diligence and I seem to get different answers. Some groups think that institutional investors will be focusing on this issue (as many managers know, one of the important issues for institutional investors is the avoidance of “headline risk”); other groups seem to think that this is an issue that institutional groups are not going to focus on because there are other aspects of a manager’s investment program and operations which deserve more attention.
We tend to agree more with the second opinion, but we still believe that robust insider trading compliance policies and procedures are vital to the long term success of any asset management company. We also encourage groups to discuss their current procedures with their compliance consultant or hedge fund attorney.
Outsourcing and Technology solutions
Many large managers have implemented compliance programs which have technology solutions designed to track employee trading. Presumably there will be technology programs developed to address this concern for manager. Although I do not currently know of any specific outsourced or technology solutions which address this issue, I anticipate discussing this in greater depth in the future – perhaps there is some data warehousing solution. [HFLB note: please contact us if you would like to discuss such a solution with us.]
The Galleon insider trading case could not have happened at a worse time for the hedge fund industry which is trying to put its best face forward as Congress determines its future regulatory fate. However, increased awareness of this issue will force managers to address it from an operational standpoint which will only help these managers down the road. While the full effect of this case will not be understood for a while, in the short term it is likely to cost managers in terms of time and cost to review and implement increased operational awareness and procedures.
Hedge Funds and Insider Trading
Overview of Securities Exchange Act of 1934
RIA Compliance Information
Hedge Funds and Insider Trading: PIPEs
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog and the Series 79 exam website. He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.
This entry was posted in Business Issues, compliance, Investment Advisor, Laws, Legal Resources and tagged hedge fund, hedge fund compliance, hedge fund insider trading, hedge funds, insider trading, institutional investor, investment adviser, investment adviser compliance, investment adviser insider trading, SEC on November 15, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
Section 204A | Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Section 204A — Prevention of Misuse of Nonpublic Information
Every investment adviser subject to section 204 shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of such investment adviser’s business, to prevent the misuse in violation of this Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the rules or regulations thereunder, of material, nonpublic information by such investment adviser or any person associated with such investment adviser. The Commission, as it deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, shall adopt rules or regulations to require specific policies or procedures reasonably designed to prevent misuse in violation of this Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (or the rules or regulations thereunder) of material, nonpublic information.
This entry was posted in compliance, Investment Advisor, Laws and tagged compliance, hedge fund law, insider trading, investment adviser, investment adviser compliance, Investment Advisor, registered investment advisor, section 204A on November 12, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
H.R. 3818 | Hedge Fund Registration
Bart Mallon, Esq. (http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com)
Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009 (text of act)
Below is the final text of the hedge fund registration bill as passed by the House Financial Services Commission.
To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require advisers of certain unregistered investment companies to register with and provide information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes.
Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
This Act may be cited as the `Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009′.
Section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
`(29) PRIVATE FUND- The term `private fund’ means an investment fund that–
`(A) would be an investment company under section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)) but for the exception provided from that definition by either section 3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of such Act; and
`(B) either–
`(i) is organized or otherwise created under the laws of the United States or of a State; or
`(ii) has 10 percent or more of its outstanding securities by value owned by United States persons.
`(30) FOREIGN PRIVATE FUND ADVISER- The term `foreign private fund adviser’ means an investment adviser who–
`(ii) assets under management attributable to clients in the United States of less than $25,000,000, or such higher amount as the Commission may, by rule, deem appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors; and
`(C) neither holds itself out generally to the public in the United States as an investment adviser, nor acts as an investment adviser to any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or a company which has elected to be a business development company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-53) and has not withdrawn such election.’.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE ADVISER EXEMPTION; LIMITED EXEMPTION FOR FOREIGN PRIVATE FUND ADVISERS; LIMITED INTRASTATE EXEMPTION.
Section 203(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(b)) is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `, except an investment adviser who acts as an investment adviser to any private fund,’ after `any investment adviser’;
`(3) any investment adviser that is a foreign private fund adviser;’;
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking `or’ at the end; and
(4) in paragraph (6)–
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or’;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and adding `; or’; and
`(C) a private fund.’.
SEC. 4. COLLECTION OF SYSTEMIC RISK DATA.
`(b) Records and Reports of Private Funds-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission is authorized to require any investment adviser registered under this Act to maintain such records of and file with the Commission such reports regarding private funds advised by the investment adviser as are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk as the Commission determines in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Commission is authorized to provide or make available to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to any other entity that the Commission identifies as having systemic risk responsibility, those reports or records or the information contained therein. The records and reports of any private fund, to which any such investment adviser provides investment advice, maintained or filed by an investment adviser registered under this Act, shall be deemed to be the records and reports of the investment adviser.
`(2) REQUIRED INFORMATION- The records and reports required to be maintained or filed with the Commission under this subsection shall include, for each private fund advised by the investment adviser–
`(A) the amount of assets under management;
`(B) the use of leverage (including off-balance sheet leverage);
`(C) counterparty credit risk exposures;
`(D) trading and investment positions;
`(E) trading practices; and
`(F) such other information as the Commission, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk.
`(3) OPTIONAL INFORMATION- The Commission may require the reporting of such additional information from private fund advisers as the Commission determines necessary. In making such determination, the Commission may set different reporting requirements for different classes of private fund advisers, based on the particular types or sizes of private funds advised by such advisers.
`(4) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS- An investment adviser registered under this Act is required to maintain and keep such records of private funds advised by the investment adviser for such period or periods as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk.
`(5) EXAMINATION OF RECORDS-
`(A) PERIODIC AND SPECIAL EXAMINATIONS- All records of a private fund maintained by an investment adviser registered under this Act shall be subject at any time and from time to time to such periodic, special, and other examinations by the Commission, or any member or representative thereof, as the Commission may prescribe.
`(B) AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS- An investment adviser registered under this Act shall make available to the Commission or its representatives any copies or extracts from such records as may be prepared without undue effort, expense, or delay as the Commission or its representatives may reasonably request.
`(6) INFORMATION SHARING- The Commission shall make available to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to any other entity that the Commission identifies as having systemic risk responsibility, copies of all reports, documents, records, and information filed with or provided to the Commission by an investment adviser under this subsection as the Board, or such other entity, may consider necessary for the purpose of assessing the systemic risk of a private fund. All such reports, documents, records, and information obtained by the Board, or such other entity, from the Commission under this subsection shall be kept confidential.
`(7) DISCLOSURES OF CERTAIN PRIVATE FUND INFORMATION- An investment adviser registered under this Act shall provide such reports, records, and other documents to investors, prospective investors, counterparties, and creditors, of any private fund advised by the investment adviser as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or for the assessment of systemic risk.
`(8) CONFIDENTIALITY OF REPORTS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any report or information contained therein required to be filed with the Commission under this subsection. Nothing in this paragraph shall authorize the Commission to withhold information from the Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency or any self-regulatory organization requesting the report or information for purposes within the scope of its jurisdiction, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this paragraph shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section.’.
SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF DISCLOSURE PROVISION.
SEC. 6. EXEMPTION OF AND REPORTING BY VENTURE CAPITAL FUND ADVISERS.
Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(l) Exemption of and Reporting by Venture Capital Fund Advisers- The Commission shall identify and define the term `venture capital fund’ and shall provide an adviser to such a fund an exemption from the registration requirements under this section. The Commission shall require such advisers to maintain such records and provide to the Commission such annual or other reports as the Commission determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.’.
SEC. 7. CLARIFICATION OF RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
Section 211 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-11) is amended–
`(a) The Commission shall have authority from time to time to make, issue, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations and such orders as are necessary or appropriate to the exercise of the functions and powers conferred upon the Commission elsewhere in this title, including rules and regulations defining technical, trade, and other terms used in this title. For the purposes of its rules and regulations, the Commission may–
`(1) classify persons and matters within its jurisdiction based upon, but not limited to–
`(A) size;
`(B) scope;
`(C) business model;
`(D) compensation scheme; or
`(E) potential to create or increase systemic risk;
`(2) prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters; and
`(3) ascribe different meanings to terms (including the term `client’) used in different sections of this title as the Commission determines necessary to effect the purposes of this title.’; and
`(e) The Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall, after consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009, jointly promulgate rules to establish the form and content of the reports required to be filed with the Commission under sections 203(i) and 204(b) and with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by investment advisers that are registered both under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) and the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).’.
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP helps hedge fund managers to register as investment advisors with the SEC or the state securities divisions. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or register as an investment advisor, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.
This entry was posted in Investment Advisor, Laws, new hedge fund regulations and tagged hedge fund, hedge fund registration, hedge fund registration bill, investment adviser, Investment Advisor, private equity, private equity fund, private equity fund registration on October 27, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
Hedge Fund Audit Firms and Agreed Upon Procedures
Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Discusses “Agreed Upon Procedures”
We’ve published a number of thoughtful pieces on this blog from Chris Addy, president and CEO of Castle Hall Alternatives (see, for example, article on Hedge Fund Operational Issues and Failures). Today we are publishing a piece by Chris which discusses hard to value hedge fund assets (so called Level III assets). In certain situations hedge fund audit firms will be engaged to perform an “Agreed Upon Procedures” review of the pricing of these assets. As discussed in the article below, agreed upon procedures engagements do not provide hedge fund investors with a great deal of comfort with regard to the pricing of these assets. It is unclear whether in the future investors will push back with regard to such engagements and require more robust pricing audits. The problem with more robust procedures, obviously, is increased cost (because of increased liability for the audit firms).
Managers who are engaging audit firms pursuant to agreed upon procedures should be aware that they may face tougher questions from investors going forward.
A number of our recent posts have focused on the challenges of the hedge fund administrator‘s role in relation to security valuation. We will, of course, return to this topic – but, in the meantime, wanted to focus on some of the alternatives to administrator pricing.
One of the more common comments from today’s administrators is that, while an admin may be able to price Level I and Level II securities, they do not necessarily have information to price Level III instruments. (To recap, the US accounting standard FAS 157 divides portfolios into three levels, being Level I, liquid instruments readily priced from a pricing feed (typically exchange traded); Level II, instruments priced using inputs from “comparable” securities (essentially mark to model, albeit with mainstream models); and Level III, everything else.)
This leaves investors with a challenge – if administrators cannot price Level III instruments, who can? Moreover, to repeat one of our frequent comments, it is self evident that if a hedge fund manager wishes to deliberately mismark securities, they would most likely misprice a Level III instrument. It is, of course, very hard to fake the price of IBM common stock, but much easier to mismark emerging market private loans.
Two of the most common tools available to hedge fund managers looking for third party oversight over pricing for Level III instruments – assuming the administrator has washed their hands of the problem – are third party pricing agents and auditor agreed upon procedures, or “AUP”. We will return to the strengths and weaknesses of third party pricing agents in a subsequent post, but wanted to focus this discussion on AUP.
In an Agreed Upon Procedures engagement, the auditor completes specific procedures which have been dictated by the client. The procedures are specified and the auditor then prepares a report outlining the findings of that specific work.
We have two comments here: the first is to take a high level view as to the adequacy of these procedures, and the second is to dig a little more deeply into the actual audit guidance that covers this type of work.
Our first comment is, unfortunately, an Emporer Has No Clothes observation. The significant majority of hedge fund AUP engagements we have seen require the auditor to test a fund’s pricing on a quarterly basis. This usually involves (i) obtaining a portfolio list from the investment manager and (ii) testing the pricing support for those positions.
There are, however, generally two snags. Firstly, many AUP only test a sample of prices, not the whole portfolio. Sample testing clearly provides much less assurance than a price review of all positions: the administrator, for example, is usually expected to price the entire book (would any investor accept a NAV which has been priced on a “sample” basis???)
The bigger problem, however, is the type of testing completed by the auditor. In way, way too many cases, the auditor tests security prices back to the manager’s own pricing support and makes no attempt to obtain independent pricing information.
This type of work is, clearly, somewhere between minimal and absolutely no value for investors. If the auditor receives a spreadsheet from the manager showing the matrix of broker quotes received, how does the auditor know that the manager has not adjusted that spreadsheet to exclude quotes which were uncomfortably low? Even more importantly, if all the auditor does is to check prices back to pieces of paper in the manager’s own pricing file, how does the auditor know that those pieces of paper are genuine? As we have said before, and will keep on saying, it only costs $500 to buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop if you are of a mind to alter documentation.
When discussing this type of work, the manager typically notes that, if the auditor was to complete a full, independent pricing review, it would be too costly and too time consuming to be practical on a quarterly basis. A full, GAAP audit review is, of course, performed at year end – this does include independent pricing (although – investor fyi – auditors will still only sample test many portfolios.)
While these are fair points, it remains the case that this type of AUP provides minimal protection against pricing fraud. In the meantime, the manager gets the marketing benefit of being able to claim enhanced scrutiny and oversight from a Big 4 firm each quarter.
Which leads to our second point. Why would an auditor accept to complete agreed upon procedures when any reasonable accountant would rapidly conclude that the typical scope of these AUP provide pretty much nil controls assurance? Why does the auditor not insist that, if their name is to be associated to this work, then the procedures must be meaningful and sufficient to meet an actual control standard?
To this point, the actual audit standard applicable to AUP is available here. The standard states:
An agreed-upon procedures engagement is one in which a practitioner is engaged by a client to issue a report of findings based on specific procedures performed on subject matter. The client engages the practitioner to assist specified parties in evaluating subject matter or an assertion as a result of a need or needs of the specified parties. Because the specified parties require that findings be independently derived, the services of a practitioner are obtained to perform procedures and report his or her findings. The specified parties and the practitioner agree upon the procedures to be performed by the practitioner that the specified parties believe are appropriate. Because the needs of the specified parties may vary widely, the nature, timing, and extent of the agreed upon procedures may vary as well; consequently, the specified parties assume responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures since they best understand their own needs. In an engagement performed under this section, the practitioner does not perform an examination or a review, as discussed in section 101, and does not provide an opinion or negative assurance. Instead, the practitioner’s report on agreed-upon procedures should be in the form of procedures and findings.
In practice, this all gets horribly circular. Per the standard, a client requests an auditor to complete AUP to assist “specified parties” to “evaluate subject matter or an assertion”. In our case, the assertion would be “are hard to value securities valued correctly at quarter end.”
However, the specified party is usually the manager itself, making the client and specified party the same person. The particular trick applied, in many cases, is for the auditor to seek to prevent the investor from actually seeing the AUP in the first place! However, if the investor is to have access to the AUP, the auditor universally requires the investor to sign a Catch 22 document which requires the investor to acknowledge that the AUP are “sufficient for their needs”. So, even if the investor believes that the AUP are not “sufficient for their needs” – which is hardly a long stretch – the investor has to sign that the procedures are sufficient if they are to even see the auditor’s work. With this magic piece of paper, the auditor has met its requirements and can sleep easy. Meanwhile, the auditor will send a bill to – guess who – the fund, meaning that investors have, once more, had to foot the bill.
Related hedge fund law articles:
Hedge Fund Fee Discussion
ERISA versus Hedge Funds
This entry was posted in Business Issues, Hedge Fund Structure, Laws, Marketing Your Hedge Fund, News and Commentary, Uncategorized and tagged administrator, agreed upon procedures, castle hall, castle hall alternatives, chris addy, FAS 157, hedge fund, hedge fund administrator, hedge fund audit, hedge fund audit firm, hedge fund auditor, hedge fund due diligence, hedge fund investors, level III assets on October 27, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
Employees of Registered IAs Must Generally be Registered
State-registered investment advisory firms need to make sure that their employees who are deemed to be “investment advisory representatives” are appropriately registered. This means that any employee (or owner) of the IA firm who provides investment advice or who has supervisory authority will generally need to be registered with the state as a representative of the firm. In order to register, the applicant will need to have certain qualifications and generally the series 65 will be sufficient for these purposes.
There are consequences for not properly registering employees as investment advisor representatives. In an earlier article on whether IA firms can have silent owners, we discussed the fact that many state administrators have the power to censure or fine IA firms if they do not follow the registration rules. I recently stumbled across an example of a state taking such an action.
In the attached Disciplinary Order, the Texas State Securities Board (“Board”) concluded that the “unregistered employee” of the registered investment advisory firm provided investment advice to IA clients for compensation and that the IA firm failed to maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Texas Securities Act and Board Rules. The Board reprimanded the IA firm and also ordered an administrative fine of $5,000. The firm was required to comply with the Act and Board Rules moving forward.
The two important take-aways from this order are:
Always make sure employees are registered or clearly exempt from registration, and
Always ensure that you have an up-to-date compliance program that helps to ensure that the firm will operate within all applicable laws and regulations.
We always recommend that registered IA firms discuss any registration and compliance related matters with an experienced investment management attorney with detailed knowledge of the laws of the state where the firm is registered.
Hedge Fund Laws
Net Capital Requirement for State Registered IA Firms
Withdrawing from IA Registration
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you have questions about your investment advisor compliance program, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.
This entry was posted in Business Issues, compliance, Investment Advisor, Laws, Legal Resources, Regulatory Actions and tagged IA, ia firm, ia registration, ia rep, ia representative, invesment advisor representative, investment adviser, investment adviser registration, investment adviser representative, Investment Advisor, investment advisor registration on October 18, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
CTA and CPO Registration and Compliance Guide
Practical guidance for CTA and CPO firms
Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) and Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) have been contacting me with greater regularity and we have decided to provide those firms with more detailed information on their registration and compliance requirements. Over the course of the next few weeks we will be continually updating this page with more legal and business guidance for CTAs and CPOs. Specifically, we will be providing information on the following topics:
CTA and CPO Registration – this article discusses the how-to’s of registration with the CFTC. The article details the general requirements for firms, principals, and associated persons. Included in this discussion is information on CTA/CPO exam requirements and an overview of the registration process through the NFA’s electronic registration system.
CTA and CPO Registration Exemptions – while the Commodities Exchange Act will generally require CTA and CPO firms to register with the CFTC, there are some important exemptions from the registration provisions. Review this article to see if your firm might be able to claim an exemption from the registration provisions.
CTA and CPO Compliance Overview – CTAs and CPOs are subject to a number of laws, regulations and rules. Not only must CTAs and CPOs follow CFTC laws and regulations, but as Members of the NFA, these groups must also follow all of the rules developed by the NFA. We will be discussing compliance best practices, major examination issues, major deadlines and the CTA/CPO compliance manual. Being prepared for an NFA examination is of great importance.
Recent NFA Actions against CTA and CPO Managers – the NFA and the CFTC have been quite active lately. In this article we will be discussing some of the most recent actions against NFA member firms. This article will also provide common-sense advice on what managers can do the protect themselves from examination deficiencies.
Important NFA Rules for CTA and CPO Firms – there are a number of rules which the NFA has regarding the conduct of CTAs and CPOs. In general CTAs and CPOs must hold themselves out with the utmost professionalism. This article will detail this and other important NFA rules.
CTA and CPO advertising – there are a number of important rules regarding advertising for CTAs and CPOs. CPOs, especially, must be careful about advertising because of the restrictions under Rule 506 of Regulation D, an exemption that many CPOs utilize in offering their fund interests. Websites will be touched upon in this post and will also be discussed in greater depth in a subsequent posting.
CTA and CPO websites – many CTA firms utilize the internet to advertise their services. CPO firms will also sometimes have a (minimal) internet presence. This article will detail the considerations that both CTA and CPO firms face when creating and maintaining an internet presence and how to deal with internet based inquiries from potential investors.
NFA Exam Requirements for CTAs and CPOs – individuals of NFA member firms will generally need to have a Series 3 exam license and potentially a Series 30 exam. Some individuals may need to have a Series 31 exam license and, potentially in the future, forex CTAs and CPOs will need to have a Series 34 exam license. This article will discuss these exams and the process an individual will go through in order to register to take the exams.
CTA Expo Blog – the unofficial blog of the CTA Expo most recently held in October of 2009. Information for CTA managers on business, legal and compliance issues. Included is a directory of CTA firms and service providers.
Forex CTAs and CPOs – the regulatory light has been focused on retail spot forex managers recently. Read this article to get up to speed on recent CFTC and NFA pronouncements regarding this area of the industry. We will also provide information on Forex IBs and Forex FCMs.
In addition to the above topics we are hoping to add others over time. We welcome all feedback and encourage you to leave comments below. We will also attempt to answer CTA and CPO frequently asked questions.
If you are a manager or firm that needs to register as a CTA or CPO, or if you are contemplating registration, please contact Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP at 415-868-5345.
This entry was posted in cftc, Commodities and Futures, compliance, CPO, CTA, Forex, Laws, Legal Resources, NFA and tagged cftc, Commodity Pool Operator, Commodity Trading Advisor, CPO, cpo compliance, CPO hedge fund, cpo registration, CTA, cta compliance, cta expo, cta expo 2010, cta registration, Forex CPO, Forex CTA, forex hedge fund, forex registration, futures hedge fund, managed futures, managed futures funds, NFA, nfa compliance on October 15, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
Purchasing an ERISA Fidelity Bond
Information on How to Buy ERISA Bond
Purchasing an ERISA Fidelity Bond is essentially the same as purchasing a fidelity bond for an investment advisory firm and this article is meant to serve as guide as to cost and timing to secure one of these bonds.
Generally a manager will need to make sure that the bond is for 10% of the amount of the ERISA assets (subject to a minimum bond requirement of $1,000). This means that if the ERISA assets in the fund are $1MM, the manager will need to have a bond for at least $100,000.
However, the maximum bond amount with regard to any one plan is $500,000. This means that if the manager has ERISA assets in the fund (from one plan) of $6MM, the manager will only need to have a bond in the amount of $500,000 with respect to that plan.
Generally, if the manager had two plans in his fund – one with $6MM in assets and one with $2MM in assets, the manager would need to have $700,000 worth of coverage ($500,000 and $200,000 respectively). The best way to accomplish this is to have separate bonds for the separate ERISA plans invested in the fund.
Cost of ERISA Bond
A bond consultant or insurance broker will generally be able to provide a quote for the ERISA coverage needs. The costs are fairly reasonable – generally around $200 to $400 for every $100,000 of coverage per year. For newly formed management companies, the amount of the bond may be based on the personal credit score of an officer of such management company.
Application Process and Timing
ERISA bonds are fairly easy to purchase and can be delivered quickly. The application process is generally pretty basic – applications will require basic information about the management company, the fund and/or the officer(s) of the management company. Different bond companies will require different information or have different application processes or procedures.
In my experience, managers have been able to secure a bond within about a week of submitting an application. If you are a manager that is likely to receive an allocation from an ERISA plan, the best practice is to have the bond in place prior to the time that the ERISA assets are wired to the fund account. Accordingly, the manager should take care to make sure the bonding company has all necessary information in order to place the bond by the necessary time.
As with other sensitive areas of hedge fund law (like taxation) managers should take extra care when dealing with ERISA investors and ERISA requirements. I always recommend discussing any ERISA issues with an ERISA specialist.
Please also see our disclaimer with regard to the information presented on this website.
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you are a current hedge fund manager with questions about ERISA, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345. Other related hedge fund law articles include:
ERISA Bonding FAQ – DOL Answers
ERISA Hedge Fund Issues Overview
Hedge Fund Side Letters
Hedge Fund IRA Investments
Hedge Fund Laws Overview
ERISA, Hedge Funds, and Valuation
Institutional Investor Due Diligence
This entry was posted in Business Issues, Laws, Legal Resources and tagged ERISA, erisa bond, erisa bond requirement, erisa hedge fund, erisa hedge fund manager bond, hedge fund, hedge fund ERISA, hedge fund manager, hedge funds on October 11, 2009 by Hedge Fund Attorney.
Hedge Fund Manager/Trader Settles Charges with SEC
Insider trading cases pop up every now and again and most cases do not warrant highlighting – post-Boesky everyone in the securities industry is well aware that trading on inside information is illegal. However, it warrants emphasis that the SEC will crack down on hedge fund managers or traders involved with insider trading and the penalties are harsh. The individuals (including a hedge fund manager) involved in the action described in the SEC litigation release reprinted below were subject to fines and disgorgement, of course, but were also barred from the securities industry. The severity of such a penalty underscores the importance of understanding and abiding by the insider trading rules.
As noted below, trading on insider information is illegal under both civil (Section 17(a) of the 1933 act, Section 10(b) of the 1934 act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and criminal laws (generally securities fraud, but depending on the facts charges may also include wire fraud and commercial bribery).
Litigation Release No. 21244
SEC v. Mitchel S. Guttenberg, Erik R. Franklin, David M. Tavdy, Mark E. Lenowitz, Robert D. Babcock, Andrew A. Srebnik, Ken Okada, David A. Glass, Marc R. Jurman, Randi E. Collotta, Christopher K. Collotta, Q Capital Investment Partners, LP, DSJ International Resources Ltd. (d/b/a Chelsey Capital), and Jasper Capital LLC, C.A. No. 07 CV 1774 (S.D.N.Y) (PKC)
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on September 29, 2009, the Honorable P. Kevin Castel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered final judgments against defendants Erik R. Franklin, Q Capital Investment Partners, LP (“Q Capital”), and David M. Tavdy, in SEC v. Guttenberg, et al., C.A. No. 07 CV 1774 (S.D.N.Y.), an insider trading case the Commission filed on March 1, 2007. The Commission’s complaint alleged illegal insider trading in connection with two related schemes in which Wall Street professionals serially traded on material, nonpublic information tipped by insiders at UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”) and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (“Morgan Stanley”), in exchange for cash kickbacks.
The Commission’s complaint alleged that from 2001 through 2006, Mitchel S. Guttenberg, an executive director in the equity research department of UBS, illegally tipped material, nonpublic information concerning upcoming UBS analyst upgrades and downgrades to two Wall Street traders, Franklin and Tavdy, in exchange for sharing in the illicit profits from their trading on that information. The complaint also alleged that Franklin was a downstream tippee in another scheme in which, in 2005 and 2006, Randi Collotta, an attorney who worked in the global compliance department of Morgan Stanley, illegally tipped material, nonpublic information concerning upcoming corporate acquisitions involving Morgan Stanley’s investment banking clients.
The complaint alleged that Franklin illegally traded on the inside information for two hedge funds he managed, Lyford Cay Capital, LP and Q Capital, and in his personal accounts. Tavdy illegally traded on the inside information (i) for Andover Brokerage, LLC and Assent LLC, registered broker-dealers where Tavdy was a proprietary trader, (ii) in his own personal account, (iii) in the accounts of a relative and friend, and (iv) in the accounts of Jasper Capital LLC, a day-trading firm with which Tavdy was associated. Franklin and Tavdy also had downstream tippees who traded on the inside information. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Franklin, Q Capital, and Tavdy settled the Commission’s insider trading charges.
Franklin and Q Capital consented to the entry of a final judgment which (i) permanently enjoins them from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”); and (ii) orders, on a joint and several liability basis, disgorgement of $5,400,000, with all but $290,000 waived based on a demonstrated inability to pay. In a related administrative proceeding, Franklin consented to the entry of a Commission order barring him from future association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser. In a parallel criminal case, Franklin previously pled guilty to charges of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and is awaiting sentencing. U.S. v. Erik Franklin, No. 1:07-CR-164 (S.D.N.Y.).
Tavdy consented to the entry of a final judgment which (i) permanently enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act; and (ii) orders him to pay disgorgement of $10,300,000. In a related administrative proceeding, Tavdy consented to the entry of a Commission order barring him from future association with any broker or dealer. In a parallel criminal case, Tavdy previously pled guilty to charges of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and was sentenced to 63 months in prison. U.S. v. Mitchel Guttenberg and David Tavdy, No. 1:07-CR-141 (S.D.N.Y.).
The Commission also announced that Samuel W. Childs, Jr., a former general securities principal at Assent LLC, consented to a Commission order barring him from future association with any broker or dealer, based on his criminal conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and commercial bribery. U.S. v. Samuel W. Childs, Jr. and Laurence McKeever, No. 1:07-CR-142 (S.D.N.Y.). In that case, the criminal indictment alleged that Childs accepted bribes from traders at Assent LLC in exchange for not reporting their illegal trading to Assent management.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 20022 (March 1, 2007), 20367 (November 20, 2007), 20725 (September 18, 2008), and 21086 (June 16, 2009).
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs Hedge Fund Law Blog. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund or if you are a current hedge fund manager with questions about the securities laws, please contact us or call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345. Other related hedge fund law articles include:
This entry was posted in Business Issues, Laws, News and Commentary, SEC and tagged hedge fund, hedge fund insider trading, hedge fund law, hedge fund laws, hedge fund SEC, hedge funds, insider trading hedge fund, SEC, SEC insider trading on October 10, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.
ERISA Bonding Requirement for Hedge Fund Managers
ERISA Fidelity Bond Information
Hedge fund managers who manages hedge funds which exceed the 25% ERISA threshold will need to purchase a fidelity bond. The questions and answers below on the ERISA fidelity bonding requirements were prepared by the Department of Labor which is the governmental agency which is in charge of enforcing the ERISA laws and regulations.
The memorandum below can be found here. We also have prepared a discussion on the costs of an ERISA fidelity bond.
Memorandum For: Virginia C. Smith
From: Robert J. Doyle
Director of Regulations and Interpretations
Subject: Guidance Regarding ERISA Fidelity Bonding Requirements
ERISA section 412 and related regulations (29 C.F.R. § 2550.412-1 and 29 C.F.R. Part 2580) generally require that every fiduciary of an employee benefit plan and every person who handles funds or other property of such a plan shall be bonded. ERISA’s bonding requirements are intended to protect employee benefit plans from risk of loss due to fraud or dishonesty on the part of persons who ”handle” plan funds or other property. ERISA refers to persons who handle funds or other property of an employee benefit plan as “plan officials.” A plan official must be bonded for at least 10% of the amount of funds he or she handles, subject to a minimum bond amount of $1,000 per plan with respect to which the plan official has handling functions. In most instances, the maximum bond amount that can be required under ERISA with respect to any one plan official is $500,000 per plan. Effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2008, however, the maximum required bond amount is $1,000,000 for plan officials of plans that hold employer securities.(1)
Since enactment of ERISA, the Agency has provided various forms of guidance concerning the application of ERISA’s bonding requirements. Over the past several years, however, a number of questions have been raised by our Regional Offices and others concerning the bonding rules. In addition, amendments to section 412 that were enacted in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) have presented questions concerning the application of those changes to plan fiduciaries and other persons handling plan funds or other property. This Bulletin provides guidance, in a question and answer format, for our Regional Offices concerning the application of ERISA’s bonding requirements and the PPA changes thereto. This Bulletin is not intended to address any civil or criminal liability that may result from losses to a plan caused by acts of fraud or dishonesty or violations of ERISA’s fiduciary provisions.
Q-1: What losses must an ERISA bond cover?
An ERISA section 412 bond (sometimes referred to as an ERISA fidelity bond) must protect the plan against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on the part of persons required to be bonded, whether the person acts directly or through connivance with others. ERISA § 412; 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-1. The term “fraud or dishonesty” for this purpose encompasses risks of loss that might arise through dishonest or fraudulent acts in handling plan funds or other property. This includes, but is not limited to, larceny, theft, embezzlement, forgery, misappropriation, wrongful abstraction, wrongful conversion, willful misapplication, and other acts where losses result through any act or arrangement prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1954. The bond must provide recovery for loss occasioned by such acts even though no personal gain accrues to the person committing the act and the act is not subject to punishment as a crime or misdemeanor, provided that within the law of the state in which the act is committed, a court would afford recovery under a bond providing protection against fraud or dishonesty. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-9. Deductibles or other similar features that transfer risk to the plan are prohibited. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11. [See also Bond Terms and Provisions, Q-26 through Q-30.]
Q-2: Is an ERISA fidelity bond the same thing as fiduciary liability insurance?
No. The fidelity bond required under section 412 of ERISA specifically insures a plan against losses due to fraud or dishonesty (e.g., theft) on the part of persons (including, but not limited to, plan fiduciaries) who handle plan funds or other property. Fiduciary liability insurance, on the other hand, generally insures the plan against losses caused by breaches of fiduciary responsibilities.
Fiduciary liability insurance is neither required by nor subject to section 412 of ERISA. Whether a plan purchases fiduciary liability insurance is subject, generally, to ERISA’s fiduciary standards, including section 410 of ERISA. ERISA section 410 allows, but does not require, a plan to purchase insurance for its fiduciaries or for itself covering losses occurring from acts or omissions of a fiduciary. Any such policy paid for by the plan must, however, permit recourse by the insurer against the fiduciary in the case of a fiduciary breach. In some cases, the fiduciary may purchase, at his or her expense, protection against the insurer’s recourse rights.
Q-3: Who are the parties to an ERISA fidelity bond?
In a typical bond, the plan is the named insured and a surety company is the party that provides the bond. The persons “covered” by the bond are the persons who “handle” funds or other property of the plan (i.e., plan officials). As the insured party, the plan can make a claim on the bond if a plan official causes a loss to the plan due to fraud or dishonesty. [See also Bond Terms and Provisions, Q-31 and Q-32.]
Q-4: Can I get an ERISA bond from any bonding or insurance company?
No. Bonds must be placed with a surety or reinsurer that is named on the Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties, Department Circular 570 (available at fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html). 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-21, § 2580.412-23, § 2580.412-24. Under certain conditions, bonds may also be placed with the Underwriters at Lloyds of London. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-25, § 2580.412.26. In addition, neither the plan nor a party-in-interest with respect to the plan may have any control or significant financial interest, whether direct or indirect, in the surety, or reinsurer, or in an agent or broker through which the bond is obtained. ERISA § 412(c); 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-22 and §§ 2580.412-33 to 2580.412.36. If a surety becomes insolvent, is placed in receivership, or has its authority to act as an acceptable surety revoked, the administrator of any plan insured by the surety is responsible, upon learning of such facts, for securing a new bond with an acceptable surety. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-21(b).
Q-5: Who must be bonded?
Every person who “handles funds or other property” of an employee benefit plan within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6 (i.e., a plan official) is required to be bonded unless covered under one of the exemptions in section 412 for certain banks, insurance companies, and registered brokers and dealers, or by one of the regulatory exemptions granted by the Department in its regulations. [See Exemptions From The Bonding Requirements, Q-12 through Q-15, Funds Or Other Property, Q-17, and Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18 through Q-21.] Plan officials will usually include the plan administrator and those officers and employees of the plan or plan sponsor who handle plan funds by virtue of their duties relating to the receipt, safekeeping and disbursement of funds. Plan officials may also include other persons, such as service providers, whose duties and functions involve access to plan funds or decision-making authority that can give rise to a risk of loss through fraud or dishonesty. Where a plan administrator, service provider, or other plan official is an entity, such as a corporation or association, ERISA’s bonding requirements apply to the natural persons who perform “handling” functions on behalf of the entity. See 29 C.F.R. § 2550.412-1(c), § 2580.412-3 and § 2580.412-6.
Q-6: Who is responsible for making sure that plan officials are properly bonded?
The responsibility for ensuring that plan officials are bonded may fall upon a number of individuals simultaneously. In addition to a plan official being directly responsible for complying with the bonding requirements in section 412(a) of ERISA, section 412(b) specifically states that it is unlawful for any plan official to permit any other plan official to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control over plan funds or other property without first being properly bonded in accordance with section 412. In addition, section 412(b) makes it unlawful for “any other person having authority to direct the performance of such functions” to permit a plan official to perform such functions without being bonded. Thus, by way of example, if a named fiduciary hires a trustee for a plan, the named fiduciary must ensure that the trustee is either subject to an exemption or properly bonded in accordance with section 412, even if the named fiduciary is not himself or herself required to be bonded because he or she does not handle plan funds or other property.
Q-7: Must all fiduciaries be bonded?
No. Fiduciaries must be bonded only if they “handle” funds or other property of an employee benefit plan and do not fall within one of the exemptions in section 412 or the regulations. [See also Exemptions From The Bonding Requirements, Q-12 through Q-15, and Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18 through Q-21.]
Q-8: Must service providers to the plan be bonded?
As noted above, only those persons who “handle” funds or other property of an employee benefit plan are required to be bonded under section 412. Therefore, a service provider, such as a third-party administrator or investment advisor, will be subject to bonding under section 412 only if that service provider “handles” funds or other property of an employee benefit plan. See 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-3(d), § 2580.412-4, § 2580.412-5 and § 2580.412-6. [See also Funds Or Other Property, Q-17, and Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18.]
Q-9: Must a person who renders investment advice to a plan be bonded solely by reason of rendering such investment advice?
No. A person who provides investment advice, but who does not exercise or have the right to exercise discretionary authority with respect to purchasing or selling securities or other property for the plan, is not required to be bonded solely by reason of providing such investment advice. If, however, in addition to rendering such investment advice, such person performs any additional functions that constitute “handling” plan funds or other property within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6, then that person must be bonded in accordance with section 412. [See also Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18 through Q-21.]
Q-10: If a service provider is required to be bonded, must the plan purchase the bond?
No. A service provider can purchase its own separate bond insuring the plan, and nothing in ERISA specifically requires the plan to pay for that bond. If, on the other hand, a plan chooses to add a service provider to the plan’s existing bond, that decision is within the discretion of the plan fiduciaries. Regardless of who pays for the bond, section 412 provides that if a service provider to the plan is required to be bonded, the plan fiduciaries who are responsible for retaining and monitoring the service provider, and any plan officials who have authority to permit the service provider to perform handling functions, are responsible for ensuring that such service provider is properly bonded before he or she handles plan funds. ERISA § 412(b). [See also Q-6, above, and Form And Scope Of Bond, Q-22 and Q-25.]
Q-11: If the plan purchases a bond to meet section 412’s requirements, may the plan pay for the bond out of plan assets?
Yes. Because the purpose of ERISA’s bonding requirements is to protect employee benefit plans, and because such bonds do not benefit plan officials or relieve them from their obligations to the plan, a plan’s purchase of a proper section 412 bond will not contravene ERISA’s fiduciary provisions in sections 406(a) and 406(b). See 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-5, FR-9.
Exemptions From The Bonding Requirements
Q-12: Do ERISA’s bonding requirements apply to all employee benefit plans?
No. The bonding requirements under ERISA section 412 do not apply to employee benefit plans that are completely unfunded or that are not subject to Title I of ERISA. ERISA § 412(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-1, § 2580.412-2.
Q-13: What plans are considered “unfunded” so as to be exempt from ERISA’s bonding requirements?
An unfunded plan is one that pays benefits only from the general assets of a union or employer. The assets used to pay the benefits must remain in, and not be segregated in any way from, the employer’s or union’s general assets until the benefits are distributed. Thus, a plan will not be exempt from ERISA’s bonding requirements as “unfunded” if:
any benefits under the plan are provided or underwritten by an insurance carrier or service or other organization;
there is a trust or other separate entity to which contributions are made or out of which benefits are paid;
contributions to the plan are made by the employees, either through withholding or otherwise, or from any source other than the employer or union involved; or
there is a separately maintained bank account or separately maintained books and records for the plan or other evidence of the existence of a segregated or separately maintained or administered fund out of which plan benefits are to be provided.
As a general rule, however, the presence of special ledger accounts or accounting entries for plan funds as an integral part of the general books and records of an employer or union will not, in and of itself, be deemed sufficient evidence of segregation of plan funds to take a plan out of the exempt category, but shall be considered along with the other factors and criteria discussed above in determining whether the exemption applies. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-1, § 2580.412-2.
As noted above, an employee benefit plan that receives employee contributions is generally not considered to be unfunded. Nevertheless, the Department treats an employee welfare benefit plan that is associated with a fringe benefit plan under Internal Revenue Code section 125 as unfunded, for annual reporting purposes, if it meets the requirements of DOL Technical Release 92-01,(2) even though it includes employee contributions. As an enforcement policy, the Department will treat plans that meet such requirements as unfunded for bonding purposes as well.
Q-14: Are fully-insured plans “unfunded” for purposes of ERISA’s bonding requirements?
No. As noted above, a plan is considered “unfunded” for bonding purposes only if all benefits are paid directly out of an employer’s or union’s general assets. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-2. Thus, insured plan arrangements are not considered “unfunded” and are not exempt from the bonding requirements in section 412 of ERISA. The insurance company that insures benefits provided under the plan may, however, fall within a separate exemption from ERISA’s bonding requirements. See ERISA § 412; 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-31, § 2580.412-32. In addition, if no one “handles” funds or other property of the insured plan, no bond will be required under section 412. For example, as described in 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6(b)(7), in many cases contributions made by employers or employee organizations or by withholding from employees’ salaries are not segregated from the general assets of the employer or employee organization until paid out to purchase benefits from an insurance carrier, insurance service or other similar organization. No bonding is required with respect to the payment of premiums, or other payments made to purchase such benefits, directly from general assets, nor with respect to the bare existence of the contract obligation to pay benefits. Such insured arrangements would not normally be subject to bonding except to the extent that monies returned by way of benefit payments, cash surrender, dividends, credits or otherwise, and which by the terms of the plan belong to the plan (rather than to the employer, employee organization, or insurance carrier), were subject to “handling” by a plan official. [See also 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-5(b)(2); Q-15, below; and Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18.]
Q-15: Are there any other exemptions from ERISA’s bonding provisions for persons who handle funds or other property of employee benefit plans?
Yes. Both section 412 and the regulations found in 29 C.F.R. Part 2580 contain exemptions from ERISA’s bonding requirements. Section 412 specifically excludes any fiduciary (or any director, officer, or employee of such fiduciary) that is a bank or insurance company and which, among other criteria, is organized and doing business under state or federal law, is subject to state or federal supervision or examination, and meets certain capitalization requirements. ERISA § 412(a)(3). Section 412 also excludes from its requirements any entity which is registered as a broker or a dealer under section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA), 15 U.S.C. 78o(b), if the broker or dealer is subject to the fidelity bond requirements of a “self regulatory organization” within the meaning of SEA section 3(a)(26), 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26). ERISA § 412(a)(2). As with section 412’s other statutory and regulatory exemptions, this exemption for brokers and dealers applies to both the broker-dealer entity and its officers, directors and employees.
In addition to the exemptions outlined in section 412, the Secretary has issued regulatory exemptions from the bonding requirements. These include an exemption for banking institutions and trust companies that are subject to regulation and examination by the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-27, § 2580.412-28. Unlike the exemption in section 412 for banks and trust companies, this regulatory exemption applies to banking institutions even if they are not fiduciaries to the plan, but it does not apply if the bank or trust company is subject only to state regulation.
The Department’s regulations also exempt any insurance carrier (or service or similar organization) that provides or underwrites welfare or pension benefits in accordance with state law. This exemption applies only with respect to employee benefit plans that are maintained for the benefit of persons other than the insurance carrier or organization’s own employees. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-31, § 2580.412-32. Unlike the exemption in section 412 for insurance companies, this regulatory exemption applies to insurance carriers even if they are not plan fiduciaries, but it does not apply to plans that are for the benefit of the insurance company’s own employees.
In addition to the exemptions described above, the Secretary has issued specific regulatory exemptions for certain savings and loan associations when they are the administrators of plans for the benefit of their own employees. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-29, § 2580.412-30.
Q-16: Are SEPs and SIMPLE IRAs subject to ERISA’s bonding requirements?
There is no specific exemption in section 412 for SEP (IRC § 408(k)) or SIMPLE IRA (IRC § 408(p)) retirement plans. Such plans are generally structured in such a way, however, that if any person does “handle” funds or other property of such plans that person will fall under one of ERISA’s financial institution exemptions. ERISA § 412; 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-27, § 2580.412-28.
Funds Or Other Property
Q-17: What constitutes “funds or other property” of the plan?
The term “funds or other property” generally refers to all funds or property that the plan uses or may use as a source for the payment of benefits to plan participants or beneficiaries. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-4. Thus, plan “funds or other property” include contributions from any source, including employers, employees, and employee organizations, that are received by the plan, or segregated from an employer or employee organization’s general assets, or otherwise paid out or used for plan purposes. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-5(b)(2). Plan “funds or other property” also include all items in the nature of quick assets, such as cash, checks and other negotiable instruments, government obligations, marketable securities, and all other property or items that are convertible into cash or have a cash value that are held or acquired for the ultimate purpose of distribution to plan participants or beneficiaries.
Plan “funds or other property” include all plan investments, even those that are not in the nature of quick assets, such as land and buildings, mortgages, and securities in closely-held corporations, although permanent assets that are used in operating the plan, such as land and buildings, furniture and fixtures, or office and delivery equipment used in the operation of the plan, are generally not considered to be “funds or other property” of the plan for bonding purposes. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-4. It is important to note, however, that ERISA’s bonding requirements apply only to persons who “handle” plan “funds or other property.” Whether a person is “handling” any given plan “funds or other property” so as to require bonding will depend on whether that person’s relationship to the property is such that there is a risk that the person, acting alone or in connivance with others, could cause a loss of such funds or other property though fraud or dishonesty. [See Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18.]
Handling Funds Or Other Property
Q-18: What does it mean to “handle” funds or other property of an employee benefit plan so as to require bonding under section 412?
The term “handling” carries a broader meaning than actual physical contact with “funds or other property” of the plan. A person is deemed to be “handling” funds or other property of a plan so as to require bonding whenever his duties or activities with respect to given funds or other property are such that there is a risk that such funds or other property could be lost in the event of fraud or dishonesty on the part of such person, whether acting alone or in collusion with others. Subject to this basic standard, the general criteria for determining “handling” include, but are not limited to:
physical contact (or power to exercise physical contact or control) with cash, checks or similar property;
power to transfer funds or other property from the plan to oneself or to a third party, or to negotiate such property for value (e.g., mortgages, title to land and buildings, or securities);
disbursement authority or authority to direct disbursement;
authority to sign checks or other negotiable instruments; or
supervisory or decision-making responsibility over activities that require bonding.
29 C.F.R. 2580.412-6(b). [See also Funds Or Other Property, Q-17.]
“Handling” does not occur, on the other hand, and bonding is not required, under circumstances where the risk of loss to the plan through fraud or dishonesty is negligible. This may be the case where the risk of mishandling is precluded by the nature of the “funds or other property” at issue (e.g., checks, securities, or title papers that cannot be negotiated by the persons performing duties with respect to them), or where physical contact is merely clerical in nature and subject to close supervision and control. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6(a)(2), § 2580.412-6(b)(1). In the case of persons with supervisory or decision-making responsibility, the mere fact of general supervision would not, necessarily, in and of itself, mean that such persons are “handling” funds so as to require bonding. Factors to be accorded weight are the system of fiscal controls, the closeness and continuity of supervision, and who is in fact charged with or actually exercising final responsibility for determining whether specific disbursements, investments, contracts, or benefit claims are bona fide and made in accordance with the applicable trust or other plan documents. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6(b)(6). Again, the general standard for determining whether a person is “handling” plan funds or other property is whether the person’s relationship with respect those funds is such that he or she can cause a loss to the plan through fraud or dishonesty.
Q-19: If the plan provides that a plan committee has the authority to direct a corporate trustee, who has custody of plan funds, to pay benefits to plan participants, are the committee members “handling” plan funds or property?
Yes, if the committee’s decision to pay benefits is final and not subject to approval by someone else, the committee members are “handling” plan funds within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6, and each committee member must be bonded.
Q-20: If the committee makes investment decisions for the plan, are the committee members “handling” plan funds or other property?
Yes, if the committee’s investment decisions are final and not subject to approval by someone else, the committee members are “handling” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6, and each committee member must be bonded.
Q-21: Are the committee members considered to be “handling” funds if the committee only recommends investments?
No, not if someone else is responsible for final approval of the committee’s recommendations. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-6.
Form And Scope Of Bond
Q-22: Do the regulations require that a bond take a particular form?
The Department’s regulations allow substantial flexibility regarding bond forms, as long as the bond terms meet the substantive requirements of section 412 and the regulations for the persons and plans involved. Examples of bond forms include: individual; name schedule (covering a number of named individuals); position schedule (covering each of the occupants of positions listed in the schedule); and blanket (covering the insured’s officers and employees without a specific list or schedule of those being covered). A combination of such forms may also be used. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-10.
A plan may be insured on its own bond or it can be added as a named insured to an existing employer bond or insurance policy (such as a “commercial crime policy”), so long as the existing bond is adequate to meet the requirements of section 412 and the regulations, or is made adequate through rider, modification or separate agreement between the parties. For example, if an employee benefit plan is insured on an employer’s crime bond, that bond might require an “ERISA rider” to ensure that the plan’s bonding coverage complies with section 412 and the Department’s regulations. Service providers may also obtain their own bonds, on which they name their plan clients as insureds, or they may be added to a plan’s bond by way of an “Agents Rider.” Choosing an appropriate bonding arrangement that meets the requirements of ERISA and the regulations is a fiduciary responsibility. See 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-10 and § 2580.412-20. [See also ERISA Fidelity Bonds, Q-3, Q-4, Q-10, and Bond Terms and Provisions, Q-26 through Q-34.]
Q-23: Can a bond insure more than one plan?
Yes. ERISA does not prohibit more than one plan from being named as an insured under the same bond. Any such bond must, however, allow for a recovery by each plan in an amount at least equal to that which would have been required for each plan under separate bonds. Thus, if a person covered under a bond has handling functions in more than one plan insured under that bond, the amount of the bond must be sufficient to cover such person for at least ten percent of the total amount that person handles in all the plans insured under the bond, up to the maximum required amount for each plan. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-16(c), § 2580.412-20. [See also Amount Of Bond, Q-35 through Q-42.]
Example: X is the administrator of two welfare plans run by the same employer and he “handled” $100,000 in the preceding reporting year for Plan A and $500,000 for Plan B. If both plans are insured under the same bond, the amount of the bond with respect to X must be at least $60,000, or ten percent of the total funds handled by X for both plans insured under the bond ($10,000 for Plan A plus $50,000 for Plan B).
Example: Y is covered under a bond that insures two separate plans, Plan A and Plan B. Both plans hold employer securities. Y handles $12,000,000 in funds for Plan A and $400,000 for Plan B. Accordingly, Plan A must be able to recover under the bond up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for losses caused by Y, and Plan B must be able to recover under the bond up to a maximum of $40,000 for losses caused by Y.
Q-24: If the bond insures more than one plan, can a claim by one plan reduce the amount of coverage available to other plans insured on the bond?
No. As noted above, when a bond insures more than one plan, the bond’s limit of liability must be sufficient to insure each plan as though such plan were bonded separately. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-16(c). Further, in order to meet the requirement that each plan insured on a multi-plan bond be protected, the bonding arrangement must ensure that payment of a loss sustained by one plan will not reduce the amount of required coverage available to other plans insured under the bond. This can be achieved either by the terms of the bond or rider to the bond, or by separate agreement among the parties concerned that payment of a loss sustained by one of the insureds shall not work to the detriment of any other plan insured under the bond with respect to the amount for which that plan is required to be insured. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-16(d), § 2580.412-18.
Q-25: Can a plan or service provider obtain bonds from more than one bonding company covering the same plan or plans?
Yes. Nothing in ERISA prohibits a plan from using more than one surety to obtain the necessary bonding, so long as the surety is an approved surety. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-21. Persons required to be bonded may be bonded separately or under the same bond, and any given plans may be insured separately or under the same bond. A bond may be underwritten by a single surety company or more than one surety company, either separately or on a co-surety basis. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-20. [See also ERISA Fidelity Bonds, Q-4.]
Bond Terms And Provisions
Q-26: Can a bond provide that the one-year “discovery period” required under section 412 will terminate upon the effective date of a replacement bond?
Yes, but only if the replacement bond provides the statutorily-required coverage that would otherwise have been provided under the prior bond’s one-year discovery period. If the replacement bond does not provide such coverage, the bonding arrangement does not meet the requirements of section 412.
ERISA requires that a plan have a one year period after termination of a bond to discover losses that occurred during the term of the bond. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-19(b). Some bonds, such as those written on a “loss sustained” basis, may contain a clause providing for such discovery period. Other bonds, such as those written on a “discovery basis,” may not contain such a clause, but may give the plan the right to purchase a one-year discovery period following termination or cancellation of the bond. In some instances, a prior bond and a replacement bond may work in conjunction to give the plan the required one-year discovery period. The surety industry has drafted standard bond forms that are intended to work together to provide the required coverage. Thus, both the terminating bond and the replacement bond should be examined to assure that the plan is properly insured against losses that were incurred during the term of the terminating bond, but not discovered until after it terminated.
Q-27: Can a bond exclude coverage for situations where an employer or plan sponsor “knew or should have known” that a theft was likely?
No. This exclusion is unacceptable in an ERISA fidelity bond because the plan is the insured party, not the employer or plan sponsor.
Q-28: My plan cannot obtain a bond covering a certain plan official who allegedly committed an act of fraud or dishonesty in the past. What should the plan do?
Many bonds contain provisions that exclude from coverage any persons known to have engaged in fraudulent or dishonest acts. A bond may also contain a provision that cancels coverage for any person who a plan official knows has engaged in any acts of dishonesty. In such cases, the plan must exclude any such person from handling plan funds or other property if he cannot obtain bonding coverage.
Q-29: If an employee benefit plan is added as a named insured to a company’s existing crime bond, which covers employees but specifically excludes the company owner, does the plan’s coverage under the crime bond satisfy the requirements of section 412?
If the crime bond excludes the company owner, and the owner handles plan funds, then the company bond does not fully protect the plan as required by ERISA section 412 and the Department’s regulations. The company owner would then need to be covered under a separate bond or, alternatively, if the crime bond has an ERISA rider, that rider must ensure that the company owner is not excluded from coverage with respect to the plan.
Q-30: Can the bond have a deductible?
No. Section 412 requires that the bond insure the plan from the first dollar of loss up to the maximum amount for which the person causing the loss is required to be bonded. Therefore, bonds cannot have deductibles or similar features whereby a portion of the risk required to be covered by the bond is assumed by the plan or transferred to a party that is not an acceptable surety on ERISA bonds. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11. However, nothing in ERISA prohibits application of a deductible to coverage in excess of the maximum amount required under ERISA.
Q-31: Must the plan be named as an insured on the bond for the bond to satisfy ERISA’s requirements?
Yes. The plan whose funds are being handled must be specifically named or otherwise identified on the bond in such a way as to enable the plan’s representatives to make a claim under the bond in the event of a loss due to fraud or dishonesty. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-18.
Q-32: Can bonds use an “omnibus clause” to name plans as insureds?
Yes. An “omnibus clause” is sometimes used as an alternative way to identify multiple plans as insureds on one bond, rather than specifically naming on the bond each individual plan in a group of plans. By way of example, an omnibus clause might name as insured “all employee benefit plans sponsored by ABC company.” ERISA does not prohibit using an omnibus clause to name plans insured on a bond, as long as the omnibus clause clearly identifies the insured plans in a way that would enable the insured plans’ representatives to make a claim under the bond.
If an omnibus clause is used to name plans insured on a bond, the person responsible for obtaining the bond must ensure that the bond terms and limits of liability are sufficient to provide the appropriate amount of required coverage for each insured plan. [See Amount Of Bond Q-35 through Q-42.]
Q-33: May a bond be written for a period longer than one year?
Yes. Bonds may be for periods longer than one year, so long as the bond insures the plan for the statutorily-required amount. At the beginning of each plan year, the plan administrator or other appropriate fiduciary must assure that the bond continues to insure the plan for at least the required amount, that the surety continues to satisfy the requirements for being an approved surety, and that all plan officials are bonded. If necessary, the fiduciary may need to obtain appropriate adjustments or additional protection to assure that the bond will be in compliance for the new plan year. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11, § 2580.412-19, § 2580.412-21.
Q-34: If a bond is issued for more than one year, is it acceptable to use an ERISA “inflation guard” provision with regard to the amount of the bond?
Yes. Nothing in section 412 or the regulations prohibits using an “inflation guard” provision in a bond to automatically increase the amount of coverage under a bond to equal the amount required under ERISA at the time a plan discovers a loss.
Q-35: How much coverage must the bond provide?
Generally, each plan official must be bonded in an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of funds he or she handled in the preceding year. The bond amount cannot, however, be less than $1,000, and the Department cannot require a plan official to be bonded for more than $500,000 ($1,000,000 for plans that hold employer securities) unless the Secretary of Labor (after a hearing) requires a larger bond. These amounts apply for each plan named on a bond in which a plan official has handling functions. ERISA § 412; 29 C.F.R. §§ 2580.412-11 through 2580.412-13, § 2580.412-16, § 2580.412-17. [See also Funds Or Other Property, Q-17 and Handling Funds Or Other Property, Q-18 through Q-21.]
Q-36: Can a bond be for an amount greater than $500,000, or $1,000,000 for plans that hold employer securities?
Yes. The Department’s regulations provide that bonds covering more than one plan may be required to be over $500,000 in order to meet the requirements of section 412 because persons covered by such a bond may have handling functions in more than one plan. The $500,000/$1,000,000 limitations for such persons apply only with respect to each separate plan in which those persons have such functions. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-16(e). The regulations also provide that the Secretary may prescribe a higher maximum amount for a bond, not exceeding 10 per cent of funds handled, but only after due notice and an opportunity for a hearing to all interested parties. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11, § 2580.412-17. Further, although ERISA cannot require a plan to obtain a bond in excess of the statutory maximums (absent action by the Secretary, as noted above), nothing in section 412 precludes the plan from purchasing a bond for a higher amount. Whether a plan should purchase a bond in an amount greater than that required by section 412 is a fiduciary decision subject to ERISA’s prudence standards. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-20.
In addition to the general rule described above, if a plan’s fidelity bond is intended to meet both the bonding requirements under section 412 and the enhanced bond requirement under the Department’s small plan audit waiver regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104-46, that bond must meet the additional requirements under the audit waiver regulation. Pursuant to the audit waiver regulation, in order for a small plan to be exempt from ERISA’s requirement that plans be audited each year by an independent qualified public accountant, any person who handles “non-qualifying plan assets” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104-46 must be bonded in an amount at least equal to 100% of the value of those non-qualifying assets if such assets constitute more than 5% of total plan assets. For more information on the audit waiver requirements under 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104-46, go to “Frequently Asked Questions On The Small Pension Plan Audit Waiver Regulation” at www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_auditwaiver.html.
Q-37: If a person handles only $5,000 in one plan, so that 10% of the funds he handles is only $500, can the bond be in the amount of $500?
No. The minimum amount of a bond is $1,000, even if 10% of the amount of funds handled is less than $1,000. ERISA § 412; 29 C.F.R. 2580.412-11.
Q-38: Is every plan whose investments include employer securities subject to the increased maximum bond amount of $1,000,000?
No. Section 412(a), as amended by section 622 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, provides that “[i]n the case of a plan that holds employer securities (within the meaning of section 407(d)(1)), this subsection shall be applied by substituting ‘$1,000,000’ for ‘$500,000’ each place it appears.” The Staff Report of the Joint Committee on Taxation contains a technical explanation of this provision, which states that “[a] plan would not be considered to hold employer securities within the meaning of this section where the only securities held by the plan are part of a broadly diversified fund of assets, such as mutual or index funds.”(3) Accordingly, it is the Department’s view that a plan is not considered to be holding employer securities, for purposes of the increased bonding requirement, merely because the plan invests in a broadly-diversified common or pooled investment vehicle that holds employer securities, but which is independent of the employer and any of its affiliates.
Q-39: Must a bond state a specific dollar amount of coverage?
No. There is no requirement in the regulations that a bond state a specific dollar amount of coverage, so long as the bond provides the required statutory amount per plan of at least 10% of funds handled, with minimum coverage of $1,000, for each plan official covered under the bond. For example, assume that X is the administrator of a welfare benefit plan for which he handled $600,000 in the preceding year. The bond may state that X is covered under the bond for the greater of $1,000 or 10% of funds handled, up to $500,000.
Q-40: My company’s plan has funds totaling $1,000,000, and nine employees of the plan sponsor each handle all of those funds. If all nine employees are covered under the same bond, for what amount must the bond be written?
ERISA requires that each of the nine plan officials handling the $1,000,000 be bonded for at least 10% of the amount of funds he or she handles, or $100,000, to protect the plan from losses caused by those plan officials, whether acting alone or in collusion with others. As noted in Q-39, bond amounts may be fixed either by referencing the statutory language of 10% of funds handled up to the required maximums, or by stating a specific dollar limit of coverage.
The bonding regulations allow flexibility in the form of bonds that can be used to insure the plan. Bond forms, such as individual, name schedule, position schedule, and blanket bonds, vary as to how persons covered under the bond are identified, how the bond amount is stated, and in the amount of recovery a plan can obtain for any single act of theft. 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-10. For example, name schedule bonds and position schedule bonds generally cover named individuals, or occupants of positions listed in the schedule, in amounts that are set opposite such names or positions. Blanket bonds, on the other hand, generally cover all of an insured’s officers and employees in a blanket penalty. The following examples illustrate how the differences between a blanket bond and a schedule bond might affect a plan’s recovery:
If a plan sponsor purchases a blanket bond on which the plan is a named insured, covering all of the plan sponsor’s officers and employees who handle the $1,000,000, the stated bond amount must be at least $100,000. That amount applies to each plan official covered under the bond. The bond terms, however, would generally specify that the $100,000 limit is an “aggregate penalty” which applies “per occurrence.” This means that if two of the bonded plan officials act together to steal $300,000 from the plan, that loss would generally be considered one “occurrence” for which the plan could recover only $100,000 under the bond. See 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-10(d)(1).
A schedule bond, on the other hand, gives separate coverage for each plan official covered under the bond, whether that person is named individually or covered under a named position. Thus, if the plan is insured on a schedule bond, and each named individual or position listed on the schedule is covered in the amount is $100,000, the net effect would be the same as though a separate bond were issued in the amount of $100,000 for each plan official covered under the bond. Unlike the blanket bond described above, these types of bonds generally do not limit recovery to an aggregate amount “per occurrence.” Accordingly, where, as in the above example, two plan officials act together to steal $300,000, the plan should be able to recover $200,000 under the schedule bond (i.e., $100,000 for each of the two named individuals who caused the loss to the plan). See 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-10(b) and (c).
Schedule bonds generally cost more than aggregate penalty blanket bonds with the same stated limits of liability ($100,000 in the above examples) because of the potential for a higher recovery under the schedule bond. Both aggregate penalty blanket bonds and schedule bonds are permissible forms of bonds if they otherwise meet the requirements of section 412 and the Department’s regulations. It is ultimately the responsibility of the plan fiduciary or plan official who is procuring the bond to ensure that the type and amount of the bond, together with its terms, limits, and exclusions, are both appropriate for the plan and provide the amount of coverage required under section 412.
Q-41: What happens if the amount of funds handled increases during the plan year after the bond is purchased—must the bond be updated during the plan year to reflect the increase?
No. The regulations require that, with respect to each covered person, the bond amount be fixed annually. The bond must be fixed or estimated at the beginning of the plan’s reporting year; that is, as soon after the date when such year begins as the necessary information from the preceding reporting year can practicably be ascertained. The amount of the bond must be based on the highest amount of funds handled by the person in the preceding plan year. ERISA § 412; 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11, § 2580.412-14, § 2580.412-19.
Q-42: How can the plan set the bond amount if there is no preceding plan year from which to measure the amount of funds each person handled?
If the plan does not have a complete preceding reporting year from which to determine the amounts handled, the amount handled by persons required to be covered by a bond must be estimated using the procedures described in the Department’s regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-15.
Questions concerning this guidance can be directed to the Division of Coverage, Reporting and Disclosure, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, at 202.693.8523.
Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006).
57 Fed. Reg. 23272 (June 2, 1992) and 58 Fed. Reg. 45359 (August 27, 1993).
Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, the “Pension Protection Act of 2006,” as Passed by the House on July 28, 2006, and as Considered by the Senate on August 3, 2006 (JCX-38-06), Aug. 3, 2006.
This entry was posted in Laws, Legal Resources and tagged ERISA, erisa 25%, erisa bond, erisa fidelity bond, erisa fiduciary bond, erisa hedge fund, erisa hedge fund bond, erisa hedge fund ira, erisa ira, hedge fund, hedge fund ERISA, hedge fund manager, ira erisa on October 10, 2009 by Hedge Fund Lawyer.