throbber
< Back To Browse
`
`54 in 44 results
`
`Hedge Fund Regulation (2nd Edition)
`Table of Chapters
`Author(s): Scott J Lederman
`Practice Area: Corporate and Securities
`Published: 2012 Supplement Date: May 2015
`PLI Item #: 42542
`
`Terms & Connectors
`Table of Chapters
`
`Table of Chapters
`
`< PREVIOUS RESULT
`
`NEXT RESULT >
`
`< PREVIOUS TERM
`
`NEXT TERM >
`
`Hedge Fund Regulation (2nd Edition)
`
`PART I
`Chapter 1
`Chapter 2
`Chapter 3
`PART II
`Chapter 4
`Chapter 5
`Chapter 6
`Chapter 7
`Chapter 8
`Chapter 9
`PART III
`Chapter 10
`Chapter 11
`PART IV
`Chapter 12
`Chapter 13
`Chapter 14
`Chapter 15
`Chapter 16
`Chapter 17
`Chapter 18
`PART V
`Chapter 19
`Chapter 20
`Chapter 21
`Chapter 22
`PART VI
`Chapter 23
`Chapter 24
`Chapter 25
`Chapter 26
`Chapter 27
`Chapter 28
`PART VII
`Chapter 29
`
`Introduction to Hedge Funds
`From Innovation to Industry
`Form Over Substance Hedge Fund Structures
`Rationale for Regulation
`Raising Capital
`Private Placement
`Commodity Pools
`Marketing the Manager
`Marketers
`Anti-Money Laundering Regulations
`Privacy Regulations
`Fund Regulation
`Regulation of Private Investment Companies
`Regulation of Registered Investment Companies
`The Hedge Funds Manager
`Investment Adviser Registration
`Compliance
`Books and Records
`Custody
`Performance Fees
`State Advisory Regulation
`Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisers
`Investor Considerations
`Pensions
`Banks
`Insurance Companies
`Registered Investment Companies
`Market Participation and Portfolio Management
`Broker-Dealer Status and Relationships
`Disclosures of Market Participation
`Systemic Risk Regulation
`Derivatives Markets Participants
`Trading
`Portfolio Management
`Hedge Fund-Related Products
`Structured Products
`
`All Contents Copyright © 1996-2015 Practising Law Institute Continuing Legal Education since 1933
`
`Privacy Policy
`
`Terms Of Use
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2015
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01046
`
`Page 1 of 39
`
`

`
`Chapter 2
`
`Form Over Substance:
`Hedge Fund Structures
`
`Hedge Fund Design—The Jones Blueprint
`§ 2:1
`Common Characteristics
`§ 2:2
`§ 2:2.1
`Centralized Management
`§ 2:2.2
`Co-Investment
`§ 2:2.3
`Performance-Based Compensation
`§ 2:2.4
`Limited Liquidity
`§ 2:3
`Domestic Hedge Funds
`§ 2:3.1
`Limited Liability
`§ 2:3.2
`Tax Efficiency
`§ 2:3.3
`Flexible Terms
`[A] Management Fees
`[B] Expense Pass-Throughs
`[C] Performance-Based Allocations
`[C][1]
`High Water Marks
`[C][2]
`Hurdles
`[C][3]
`Regulatory Considerations
`[D]
`Liquidity
`[D][1]
`Portfolio Characteristics
`[D][2]
`Publicly Traded Partnership Status
`[D][3]
`Liquidity Management Tools
`[D][3][a]
`Lock-Ups
`[D][3][b]
`Gates
`[D][3][c]
`Settlement Terms
`[E] Multiple Classes/Flexible Terms
`[E][1]
`Side Pockets
`[E][2]
`New Issues
`[F] Side Letters
`Offshore Hedge Funds
`§ 2:4
`§ 2:4.1
`Non-U.S. Investors
`§ 2:4.2
`U.S. Tax-Exempt Investors
`
`2–1
`
`Page 2 of 39
`
`

`
`§ 2:1
`
`HEDGE FUND REGULATION
`
`§ 2:4.3
`
`§ 2:4.4
`§ 2:4.5
`
`U.S. Taxable Investors
`[A] Passive Foreign Investment Company
`[B] Controlled Foreign Corporation
`Selecting an Offshore Entity and Jurisdiction
`Offshore Fund Terms
`[A] Partnership Approach Within a Corporate Structure
`[B] Equalization
`Complex Fund Structures
`§ 2:5
`§ 2:5.1
`Parallel Funds
`§ 2:5.2
`Master-Feeder Structure
`§ 2:5.3
`Mini-Master Fund
`
`Hedge Fund Design—The Jones Blueprint
`§ 2:1
`Although it is convenient to use terms such as “absolute return”
`and “alpha” to identify certain investment vehicles as hedge funds, the
`diversity of strategies pursued by hedge funds, as well as the erosion of
`the distinctions that have historically separated hedge funds from
`more traditional money management, renders unsatisfactory any
`attempt to define hedge funds solely by investment style. Hedge funds
`are, in fact, more readily defined by their form of organization and
`manner of operation, rather than by the substance of their activities in
`the financial markets.
`Indeed, while many modern hedge funds bear very limited resem-
`blance to the original Jones hedge fund, if one compares their portfolios
`and means of generating returns, many of the structural and operational
`traits of today’s hedge funds can trace their lineage directly back to
`Jones. As reported by Carol Loomis in 1966, the Jones hedge fund was
`organized as a privately placed, unregistered fund and was originally
`structured as a general partnership.1 It was subsequently converted into
`a limited partnership in 1952 to accommodate outside investors. The
`partnership afforded its investors only limited liquidity, as it permitted
`capital contributions into and withdrawals from the fund at the end of
`each fiscal year. In addition, the general partners of the fund received as
`compensation 20% of any realized profits (after deduction of realized
`losses) generated on the fund’s capital. Also of note was the fact that the
`general partners had agreed to keep all of their investment funds in the
`partnership. Loomis also described a fairly centralized and streamlined
`decision-making process on the part of the fund’s portfolio managers
`when it came to implementing investment decisions.
`
`1.
`
`Loomis, The Jones Nobody Keeps Up With, FORTUNE, Apr. 1966, at 237.
`
`2–2
`
`Page 3 of 39
`
`

`
`Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`
`§ 2:2.4
`
`Common Characteristics
`§ 2:2
`The structural approach taken by Jones has largely been followed by
`hedge fund managers to the present day. In surveying today’s hedge
`funds, one finds four traits that characterized the Jones fund that are
`commonly found in most current funds and the firms that manage them.
`
`Centralized Management
`§ 2:2.1
`Hedge funds are managed by a hedge fund advisory firm. That firm
`may be run by an individual portfolio manager or a team of managers,
`but the firm makes all decisions regarding the hedge fund’s investment
`activities. The hedge fund itself is organized as a limited liability entity
`whose partners, members, or shareholders are passive investors with
`little or no voting rights.
`
`Co-Investment
`§ 2:2.2
`Hedge fund managers usually invest a significant portion of their own
`liquid net worth in their hedge funds alongside of the fund’s other
`investors. This is often a major distinction from mutual fund managers,
`and provides investors some measure of comfort in that the manager is
`“eating his own cooking,” thereby helping to align the interest of the
`manager with that of the investor. Indeed, most sophisticated investors
`in hedge funds will insist upon such co-investment as a prerequisite to
`investing their own money with the manager.
`
`Performance-Based Compensation
`§ 2:2.3
`Perhaps the trait most often focused upon is that of performance-
`based compensation. While hedge fund managers generally receive a
`periodic asset-based management fee of 1% or 2% per annum, and may
`also pass through to investors certain other costs, it is the assessment
`of performance-based fees or profit allocations, pursuant to which the
`manager receives a percentage (often but not exclusively 20%) of the
`annual profits generated for the hedge fund, that has been a significant
`distinguishing characteristic from traditional money management.
`This is a major factor behind the ability of hedge funds to attract a
`steady stream of talented traders and portfolio managers.
`
`Limited Liquidity
`§ 2:2.4
`The fourth defining characteristic is the limited liquidity of hedge
`funds. This does not mean that the underlying investment portfolios
`of hedge funds are necessarily illiquid. Most hedge funds pursue their
`strategies in securities that are traded in broad liquid markets. The
`limited liquidity in question relates instead to the ability of investors
`to either add to or withdraw from the hedge funds in which they
`
`2–3
`
`Page 4 of 39
`
`

`
`§ 2:3
`
`HEDGE FUND REGULATION
`
`invest. Hedge funds often accept capital only at the beginning of calendar
`months and, if they determine that they may be reaching levels of assets
`under management that exceed their ability to effectively deploy such
`capital, may temporarily close themselves to new investor contributions.
`Conversely, hedge funds typically limit the ability of investors to with-
`draw capital or redeem from a fund, so that investors may only be able to
`exit annually, semi-annually, quarterly or monthly, upon tendering a
`certain amount of advance notice to the fund. This differs markedly from
`mutual funds, which offer daily liquidity to their investors.
`In forming a hedge fund, the legal form of the fund entity, its
`jurisdiction of organization, and the terms by which it will operate
`must be selected. Generally, a significant driver in making these deter-
`minations is the nature of the investors who will capitalize the fund. In
`the broadest sense, hedge funds can be divided between those organized
`in the United States and those organized offshore. The structure of both
`domestic and offshore hedge funds, as well as of the firms that manage
`them, is driven largely by two overriding factors: the desire to limit
`liability and to operate in a tax-efficient manner.
`
`Domestic Hedge Funds
`§ 2:3
`Domestically, a hedge fund operation, in its most basic format,
`consists of the fund itself and the investment advisory firm that
`manages the fund. Most domestic hedge funds are organized as limited
`partnerships under state law, as this legal structure affords flexibility
`and enables the fund to meet both objectives of limited liability and tax
`efficiency. An alternative structure, which is of more recent vintage
`and was not available at the time that Jones launched his fund, but
`which also achieves these ends, is the limited liability company. While
`the various states have statutes pursuant to which limited partner-
`ships and limited liability companies are organized and operated, the
`most popular jurisdiction for organization is Delaware, as its statutes
`are considered among the most flexible and its case law the most
`developed, affording both relative administrative ease and a high
`degree of legal certainty with respect to the manner in which these
`entities are operated. Corporate entities also limit liability by limiting
`their shareholders’ liability to their investment in the corporation’s
`shares; however, as is discussed below, they are not as attractive from a
`tax perspective in the domestic context.
`
`Limited Liability
`§ 2:3.1
`A limited partnership consists of at least one general partner and
`one or more limited partners. The hedge fund management firm
`serves as the general partner of the partnership while the fund’s
`investors comprise its limited partners. A limited partnership limits
`
`2–4
`
`Page 5 of 39
`
`

`
`Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`
`§ 2:3.1
`
`the liability of its limited partners to the extent of their capital account
`in the partnership.2 The balance of the capital account at any point in
`time reflects initial and subsequent contributions of cash or property
`to the partnership, increased by any gains and decreased by any losses
`or distributions. The general partner remains liable for all debts and
`obligations of the partnership.3 Consequently, the general partner is
`itself usually organized as a limited liability entity, generally, either a
`limited partnership, limited liability company, or Subchapter S cor-
`poration.4 A limited liability company, in contrast to a limited partner-
`ship, affords all of its members, including the hedge fund manager
`who serves as the managing member, with limited liability comparable
`to that of a limited partner.5 While it is prudent to operate or invest in
`a hedge fund through a vehicle providing limited liability, its impor-
`tance is magnified to the extent that the hedge fund employs leverage
`in its strategy, since, as was discussed in the previous chapter, leverage
`can serve to magnify losses which, in the absence of limited liability,
`can expose investors to losses far in excess of their invested capital.
`The basic structure of a domestic hedge fund is depicted below.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`See, e.g., DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 17 303.
`See, e.g., DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 17 403.
`If the general partner of the hedge fund limited partnership is itself a
`limited partnership, it will also have its own general partner which will
`also be organized as a limited liability entity such as a limited liability
`company or a Subchapter S corporation.
`See, e.g., DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 18 303.
`
`2–5
`
`Page 6 of 39
`
`

`
`§ 2:3.2
`
`HEDGE FUND REGULATION
`
`Tax Efficiency
`§ 2:3.2
`The use of partnerships and limited liability companies also afford
`several important tax benefits that render them preferable over other
`legal entities that are available in organizing domestic hedge funds and
`their managers. Of particular importance is the fact that, unlike a
`standard corporation that under Subchapter C of the Internal Revenue
`Code is taxed on its profits and whose shareholders pay a further tax
`on dividends when distributed, a partnership or limited liability
`company avoids this “double taxation” as neither incurs an entity-
`level tax. The fund’s partners or members are taxed currently on their
`allocable share of such entities’ income, gain or loss, whether or not
`distributed, and receive a report of their allocable share on Internal
`Revenue Service Form 1040, Schedule K-1, and similar state tax forms,
`issued by the fund.6 As most hedge funds reinvest their income rather
`than make periodic distributions to their investors, hedge fund in-
`vestors typically must meet their hedge fund related tax obligations
`from other financial sources, or withdraw capital, pursuant to the
`withdrawal terms of the fund, in advance of the due dates for their tax
`payments.
`The federal tax status of an entity is governed by the U.S. Treasury ’s
`“check-the-box” regulations, which list a number of domestic organi-
`zations that are always classified as corporations, and also provides
`that certain entities are, by default, classified as a partnership for
`federal tax purposes unless they elect to be treated as an association
`taxable as a corporation. A domestic entity with two or more members
`that is a limited partnership or limited liability company under state
`law is automatically treated as a partnership for tax purposes.7
`States and localities that impose income taxes generally do not
`impose an entity-level tax on partnerships and limited liability
`companies. However, some states and localities do impose an entity-
`level income tax or, in some cases, an annual tax per member on
`limited liability companies, and such levies need to be considered
`when determining where to organize and operate the fund and its
`manager.
`Domestic hedge funds organized as partnerships and limited liabil-
`ity companies also provide another advantage over a corporation,
`namely that the items of taxable income generated by such funds
`retain their tax character when allocated to the funds’ partners or
`members. Since certain categories of income, such as long-term capital
`gains (securities held for more than one year) and certain qualifying
`
`6.
`7.
`
`I.R.C. §§ 701, 702(a), 706(a).
`See Treas. Reg. § 301.7701 3(a). But see discussion in chapter 4 regarding
`publicly traded partnership status.
`
`2–6
`
`Page 7 of 39
`
`

`
`Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`dividend income, are taxed more favorably (currently at a maximum
`rate of 15%) than ordinary income (currently taxed at a maximum rate
`of 35%), the retention of character enables certain hedge fund investors
`to receive the more favorable tax treatment on their own tax returns.
`This contrasts to corporations, where the tax rate imposed at the
`entity level does not differentiate between long-term capital gains and
`ordinary income and where dividends distributed to shareholders are
`deemed ordinary income to the recipient, regardless of the character of
`the income that gave rise to the dividend, except in the case of
`qualified dividends.
`A Subchapter S corporation is a corporation that elects special tax
`status under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. Although
`such status permits partnership-like tax treatment by avoiding an
`entity-level tax and permitting tax character to pass through to share-
`holders, S corporations are not well suited for hedge funds when
`compared to partnerships or limited liability companies. An S corpora-
`tion is limited to no more than 100 shareholders who may not be
`nonresident aliens and who generally must be natural persons.8
`Moreover, it may issue only one class of stock, which generally
`requires allocations of taxable income and loss to its shareholders on
`a pro rata basis based on their shareholdings. Partnerships and limited
`liability companies, in contrast, have far greater flexibility to specially
`allocate income and loss. In addition, some state and local taxing
`authorities impose entity-level taxes on such corporations.
`
`Flexible Terms
`§ 2:3.3
`Yet another benefit of organizing a domestic hedge fund as a
`partnership or limited liability company is the flexibility that these
`entities afford in structuring the economic relationship between the
`hedge fund manager and its investors. As mentioned above, the
`limited partnership agreement or limited liability company operating
`agreement of most hedge funds is infused with Jones-inspired terms,
`which have been refined and modified over time. Subject to the
`manager ’s fiduciary and disclosure obligations, these terms can be
`tailored and adjusted for different groups of investors within the fund.
`
`[A] Management Fees
`Most domestic hedge funds compensate their manager with both
`an asset-based management fee and a performance-based profits
`allocation. The management fee is designed to compensate the
`manager for the overall management and administration of the hedge
`fund. It is typically set at a percentage of the net asset value, or NAV, of
`
`8.
`
`I.R.C. § 1361(b).
`
`2–7
`
`Page 8 of 39
`
`

`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`HEDGE FUND REGULATION
`
`assets under management and often falls between 1% and 2% per
`annum. It can be assessed monthly or quarterly, and can be computed
`in advance of a given period, in arrears following the close of a period,
`or based on an average of assets under management during the period.
`Where a management fee is assessed, the manager generally is
`responsible for paying the overhead in running the fund, including
`rent, phones, computers, and salaries of its personnel acting on behalf
`of the fund. The fund typically pays for investment expenses arising
`from the management of the fund’s portfolio, including brokerage
`commissions and research costs.
`
`[B] Expense Pass-Throughs
`Some funds have implemented expense pass-through arrangements
`that entitle the manager to pass through to the fund and its investors
`some of its operating expenses, in addition to charging a management
`fee.9 In a few notable instances, certain prominent hedge funds employ
`an expense pass-through in lieu of a fixed management fee. In all such
`instances, the investor should understand the level of such expenses as
`a percentage of NAV in order to compare them to more standard asset-
`based management fees. The costs of organizing the fund are typically
`paid by the fund. The Internal Revenue Code permits a partnership to
`deduct in the first year of operation $5,000 of organizational expenses,
`reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which such organiza-
`tional expenses exceed $50,000, and the remainder may be deducted
`ratably over its first 180 months of operation.10 Many hedge funds
`pass these costs on to investors over a sixty-month period.11
`The deductibility of certain expenses allocated to the partners of a
`partnership or members of a limited liability company will depend on
`whether the hedge fund is deemed a “trader” or an “investor” under
`the Internal Revenue Code. The status of the fund is a question of fact
`and turns on whether the fund is deemed to be engaged in a trade or
`business pursuant to I.R.C. section 162, in which case it will be a
`trader. The courts and the IRS have generally looked at certain factors
`to ascertain if the fund is engaged in a trade or business, including
`whether the fund engages in frequent, short-term trading and whether
`
`9.
`
`10.
`11.
`
`Wood, Expenses Are Another Way to Hike Fees, ABSOLUTE RETURN,
`Dec. 2004 Jan. 2005, at 17.
`I.R.C. § 709(b).
`Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) do not permit such
`amortization. However, most funds will still amortize these costs, so as not
`to unfairly burden initial investors. Where such costs are deemed material
`in nature, the fund must disclose in its financials that GAAP is not being
`adhered to with respect to the treatment of organizational expenses.
`See also discussion of potential implications under the Custody Rule,
`chapter 15, at n.21.
`
`2–8
`
`Page 9 of 39
`
`

`
`Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`income tends to be short-term capital gains from the sale of securities
`as opposed to interest and dividend income that is more representative
`of an investor. Trader status renders expenses trade or business
`expenses that are fully deductible by an individual partner or member
`to whom they are allocated. Certain expenses of a fund that is deemed
`an investor will be deductible by an individual partner or member only
`to the extent they exceed 2% of such partner ’s or member ’s adjusted
`gross income.12 In addition, when combined with an individual
`taxpayer ’s deductions for certain other items, they are subject to a
`further reduction generally equal to 3% of the taxpayer ’s adjusted gross
`income over a certain threshold amount.13
`
`[C] Performance-Based Allocations
`The performance-based element of manager compensation is
`intended to reward the manager for successfully generating positive
`returns on the fund’s investment portfolio. As noted above, it is a key
`distinguishing characteristic of the hedge fund, and a primary driver
`in the attractiveness of these vehicles from a portfolio manager ’s
`perspective. In the original Jones fund, the manager received 20% of
`any realized profits over realized losses.14 Today, 20% remains the
`industry “standard,” although there are managers who receive signifi-
`cantly more. However, it is typically based on both realized and
`unrealized profits in excess of losses, net of the management fee,
`and is generally assessed at the end of the calendar year.
`The manager of a domestic hedge fund will generally structure the
`performance-based compensation as an allocation of the fund’s in-
`come to the manager ’s partnership or limited liability company capital
`account, rather than as a fee.15 In the domestic setting, performance
`allocations are typically assessed on an investor-by-investor basis,
`rather than on a fund-wide basis. Allocations can afford both the
`manager and the fund’s investors certain tax advantages. The income
`so allocated to the manager retains the tax character it had inside the
`
`12.
`13.
`14.
`15.
`
`I.R.C. § 67.
`I.R.C. § 68.
`Loomis, The Jones Nobody Keeps Up With, FORTUNE, Apr. 1966.
`Under I.R.C. § 707(a) and its related legislative history, the fact (1) that the
`performance based compensation is contingent on positive performance of
`the hedge fund’s portfolio rather than calculated based on the amount of
`investment management services provided, (2) that the hedge fund man
`ager, as the fund’s general partner or managing member, acts in that
`capacity for the duration of the fund, rather than for a discrete period and
`(3) that the allocation is generally made annually, rather than more
`frequently as services are performed, should result in the performance
`allocation being respected as such, rather than being treated as a fee for tax
`purposes. See TAGGART & BIONDO, HEDGE FUNDS: A COMPREHENSIVE TAX
`PLANNING GUIDE, 44 46 (1996).
`
`2–9
`
`Page 10 of 39
`
`

`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`HEDGE FUND REGULATION
`
`fund, thereby affording the manager capital gains treatment to the
`extent the allocation includes such gains. In contrast, a fee would be
`treated entirely as a “guaranteed payment” to the manager, taxable as
`ordinary income.16 Moreover, while the profit allocation is computed
`on both realized and unrealized gains and losses, only realized gains
`included in the allocation will be subject to taxation when the
`allocation is made to the manager.17 Investors may also benefit from
`a performance allocation, as the allocation will reduce their share of
`the fund’s allocable gain dollar for dollar, while a fee will be treated as
`an ordinary expense of the fund and may be subject to limits on its
`deductibility to some investors.18
`
`[C][1] High Water Marks
`Performance-based allocations are typically subject to what is
`referred to in the industry as a “high water mark.” This requires the
`manager to make up for prior years’ losses before becoming entitled to a
`current year performance allocation. The high water mark concept in the
`domestic context is often implemented by tracking gains and losses on an
`investor-by-investor basis. Thus, if an investor invests $100,000 in a
`hedge fund that has a 20% performance fee, and, in its first year of
`operation, the fund loses money so that the investor ’s capital account
`declines to $80,000, no performance allocation would be assessed for that
`year. In order to assess a performance fee in the following year, the capital
`account would have to appreciate enough so as to exceed its prior high
`water mark (in this example, $100,000), and then, only the amount that
`exceeded the high water mark would be subject to a performance
`allocation. Thus, if at the end of the second year, the capital account
`stood at $110,000, net of the management fee or expense pass-through,
`the hedge fund manager would receive a performance allocation or fee of
`$2,000 (20% of the $10,000 over the high water mark).
`In recent years, some of the larger and more established hedge funds
`have replaced the standard high water mark with a modified approach.
`The primary rationale behind this change in terms is to better enable
`the manager to retain key talent in the wake of a loss year. As the
`preceding discussion indicates, once a hedge fund has incurred a loss,
`
`16.
`17.
`
`18.
`
`I.R.C. § 707(c).
`If the performance based compensation includes an allocation of unreal
`ized gains, that portion of the allocation will not generate tax unless the
`securities to which such gains are associated are disposed of, or the
`manager withdraws the allocated amount from its capital account. In
`contrast, if performance compensation is structured as a fee, it is included
`in income (even if it is based upon unrealized income) when the manager ’s
`right to receive it is fixed and determinable or received, depending on
`whether the manager is an accrual or cash basis taxpayer.
`I.R.C. §§ 67, 68.
`
`2–10
`
`Page 11 of 39
`
`

`
`Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`it must, under the traditional high water mark concept, generate
`profits that recoup that loss before the manager can receive a perfor-
`mance allocation. Where a fund is under its high water mark, senior
`employees of the fund’s management firm may become concerned that
`their overall compensation in the coming year or years may decline as
`the manager will not earn any performance-related revenues until
`prior losses are made up. This concern may increase the likelihood
`that they will seek employment at competing firms that are not
`encumbered by an existing loss carry forward.
`In order to enable the hedge fund manager to address this concern,
`some have amended their fund’s terms to permit the earning of some
`portion of performance compensation notwithstanding the existence
`of a loss carry forward. One approach permits the manager to receive a
`lower performance allocation (for example, 10% instead of 20%) until
`the prior loss plus some additional amount has been recouped through
`future positive investment performance. Another approach is to adjust
`the high water mark after some period of time so as to allow the
`manager to begin receiving performance allocations, even though it
`was unable to earn its way back over the preexisting high water mark.
`
`[C][2] Hurdles
`In addition to the high water mark concept, some funds include an
`additional requirement to be met before the manager may receive the
`incentive allocation. This generally comes in the form of a “hurdle rate,”
`which requires the fund’s performance to exceed a certain minimum
`rate of return. Hurdle rates can be structured in a number of ways. Some
`are calculated on an annual basis with each year ’s return measured
`against the hurdle applicable to that particular year. Others can be
`cumulative in nature. Moreover, hurdles can be set at a fixed rate or can
`be tied to a variable rate. For example, hurdles can be calculated based on
`an interest rate or a published index, depending on the nature of the
`hedge fund portfolio to which they are to be applied. Hurdles can also be
`distinguished by the amount of profits the manager is entitled to share
`in once the hurdle is surpassed. A “hard hurdle” is one where the
`incentive allocation applies only to the portion of the fund’s return in
`excess of the hurdle rate. In contrast, a “soft hurdle” entitles the
`manager to receive an incentive allocation on all profits in a given
`year, so long as the hurdle rate has been exceeded.
`
`[C][3] Regulatory Considerations
`While the foregoing describes the business and contractual concepts
`underlying performance allocations, such allocations must also be
`implemented in compliance with applicable securities regulations. As
`is discussed in greater detail in chapter 12, hedge fund managers are
`investment advisers as defined under both federal and state securities
`
`2–11
`
`Page 12 of 39
`
`

`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`HEDGE FUND REGULATION
`
`statutes. As such, they must register under either the federal or state
`regulatory regime for investment advisers unless an exemption from
`registration is available. Section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers
`Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) contains a general prohibition against
`performance-based compensation that states that “[No] investment
`adviser registered or required to be registered with the Commission
`shall enter into, extend, or renew any investment advisory contract, or
`in any way perform any investment advisory contract entered into,
`extended, or renewed on or after the effective date of this title, if such
`contract (1) provides for compensation to the investment adviser on the
`basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds
`or any portion of the funds of the client.”19 This prohibition was
`included in the Advisers Act to protect advisory clients as perfor-
`mance-based compensation is viewed as having the potential to
`encourage advisers to take undue risks with client capital in order to
`increase advisory fees. Section 205 excepts from the performance fee
`prohibition advisory contracts with funds that are exempted from the
`definition of “investment company” in the Investment Company Act by
`section 3(c)(7)20 of that statute as well as contracts with persons who are
`not residents of the United States.21
`The SEC is also authorized, pursuant to section 205(e) of the Advisers
`Act, to except from the prohibition any advisory contract if the contract
`is with persons that the SEC determines are not in need of the
`protections of the prohibition on the basis of factors including financial
`sophistication, net worth, knowledge of and experience in financial
`matters, and the amount of assets under management.22 Rule 205-3,23
`adopted pursuant to the SEC’s authority under section 205(e), provides
`relief to advisers by permitting them to charge performance-based fees to
`“Qualified Clients.” A Qualified Client must be either:
`• A natural person24 or a company that the manager reasonably
`believes, immediately prior to entering into the performance-
`based management arrangement, has a net worth of more
`than $2 million or is a “Qualified Purchaser” as defined in
`section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
`“Investment Company Act”)25 at the time they enter into the
`arrangement;
`
`19.
`20.
`21.
`22.
`23.
`24.
`
`25.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 80b 5(a)(1).
`For a discussion, see infra chapter 10.
`15 U.S.C. § 80b 5(b)(4) and (b)(5).
`15 U.S.C. § 80b 5(e).
`17 C.F.R. § 275.205 3.
`The calculation of the net worth of a natural person can include assets held
`jointly with a spouse.
`See infra section 10:3.1.
`
`2–12
`
`Page 13 of 39
`
`

`
`Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`
`§ 2:3.3
`
`• A natural person or a company that, immediately after entering
`into the performance-based management arrangement, has at
`least $1 million under management with the manager; or
`• A natural person who falls within certain categories of the
`management or employees of the manager.26
`The dollar-amount tests contained in the definition of Qualified
`Client were most recently adjusted in July 2011 and will be adjusted
`by SEC order for inflation (rounded to the nearest multiple of
`$100,000) every five years thereafter.27
`Hedge funds generally fall outside of the regulatory purview of
`the Investment Comp

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket