This website uses cookies. For more information please contact us or consult our privacy policy.
Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.
We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.
This page has been added to your binder.
- Home
- News and Insights
- Insights
- Office of Ethics Guidance on Hedge Fund and Pooled Investment Fund Asset Reporting for Appointees
Office of Government Ethics Guidance on Hedge Fund and Other Pooled Investment Fund Asset Reporting for Presidential Appointees
December 13, 2016, Covington Alert
As the President-elect begins to nominate individuals for Senate-confirmed positions in his administration, one of the major hurdles these individuals face is the statutory requirement that the Director of the Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”) review and certify a public disclosure of each source of income exceeding $200 and each property interest exceeding $1,000 in value. While for many classes of assets, identifying and disclosing the relevant assets is relatively straightforward, it is often much more difficult to file a compliant report for pooled investment fund assets, such as hedge funds, since the details of the underlying assets are often undisclosed to the investor by the fund manager or subject to a confidentiality agreement between the investor and the fund manager. This client alert summarizes the most recent OGE guidance applicable to pooled investment fund holdings.
November 17, 2016, Covington Alert
With Election Day 2016 in the books, the political world turns to the transition of power and the January 20, 2017 Inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence. With the swearing in of the new President and Vice President will come the traditional balls, parties, and receptions. The inauguration and related events are costly, and paid for largely with private funds. Individuals, businesses, and other organizations donating to the inauguration, hosting related events, or giving out tickets to either should remember that they are operating in a highly regulated space. We profile three common compliance issues below. Persons interested in this alert may also wish to review our alerts on the Presidential Transition and the political appointee vetting process.
November 16, 2016, Law360
June 9, 2016, Covington Alert
On Friday, three Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioners provided a clear description of their understanding of the facts and law that led them to oppose opening an investigation into whether Murray Energy coerced its employees into making political contributions. Statement of Reasons of Chairman Petersen and Commissioners Hunter and Goodman, FEC MUR 6661. While clarity in the law is always to be commended, the standard they use to define when a contribution is coerced is narrow and will certainly allow conduct that many employers now reject as excessive. As with two earlier decisions in which three Commissioners voted not to pursue enforcement actions against employers who compelled employees to attend a candidate’s rally or to waive signs or make calls supporting a candidate, it is clear that the FEC will not be an effective barrier to employers pressuring employees to engage in many kinds of political activity. As Lindsay Burke and I noted in a recent article in Corporate Counsel Magazine, there remain state employment law issues to consider, but the signal from this recent FEC case is unmistakable.