Articles Posted in Compliance

|

On February 2, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Sentinel Growth Fund Management, LLC (“Sentinel”), an investment adviser, and its founder, Mark J. Varrachi (“Varrachi”).  The complaint alleges that from about December 2015 to November 2016, Varacchi and Sentinel stole $3.95 million or more from investment advisory clients.  The complaint asks that the District Court impose a permanent injunction against Varacchi and Sentinel, order them to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and order them to pay civil penalties.

Neither Sentinel nor Varrachi was registered as an investment adviser with the SEC or with any state regulatory authority.  However, the SEC charged both of them with violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).  The SEC found that Sentinel was “in the business of providing investment advice concerning securities for compensation,” which fits the definition of an investment adviser in Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act.  As for Varrachi, the SEC determined that because he owned and managed Sentinel, he too was an investment adviser.  As a result of meeting the definition of an investment adviser, Sentinel and Varrachi were subject to the Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions. Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued new guidance regarding the Custody Rule and inadvertent custody of client assets in the form of a No-Action Letter on standing letters of authorization (SLOAs) and a Guidance Update on custodial contract authority. This guidance comes in the wake of the recent SEC Risk Alert identifying most frequent compliance issues found in examinations of registered investment advisers and listing custody as one of these most frequent compliance issues.

The Custody Rule, or Rule 206(4)-2, provides that it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 for a registered investment adviser to have custody of client assets unless certain requirements are met. One of these requirements is an annual surprise examination requirement, although this requirement does not apply if the investment adviser solely has custody as a result of its authority to make advisory fee deductions. Continue reading ›

|

On February 7, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) released a list of five compliance topics that are the most commonly identified topics “in deficiency letters that were sent to SEC-registered investment advisers.”  OCIE published this list in a National Exam Program Risk Alert in order to help advisers who are conducting their annual compliance reviews.

The first compliance topic was compliance with the Compliance Rule, Rule 206(4)-7, which requires an investment adviser to create and execute written policies and procedures that are reasonably tailored to prevent the investment adviser and its supervised persons from violating the Advisers Act and to detect potential violations.  The rule also requires an investment adviser to review the sufficiency of its policies and procedures at least annually and to appoint a chief compliance officer.  According to OCIE, common violations of the Compliance Rule include not having a compliance manual that is reasonably suited to the adviser’s method of doing business, failure to conduct annual reviews or annual reviews that did not cover the sufficiency of the investment adviser’s policies and procedures, failure to follow policies and procedures, and compliance manuals that are outdated.

The second topic that OCIE identified was compliance with the Advisers’ Acts rules on regulatory filings.  For example, Rule 204-1 provides that investment advisers must make amendments to their Form ADV on at least an annual basis, and the amendments must be made “within 90 days of the end of their fiscal year and more frequently, if required by the instructions to Form ADV.”  For investment advisers to private funds, Rule 204(b)-1 provides that an investment adviser must file a Form PF if the investment adviser is advising a private fund or fund with assets of $150 million or more.  Finally, Rule 503 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that issuers of private funds must file a Form D, and investment advisers usually file the Form D for their private fund clients.  OCIE determined that the most frequent violations of these rules were inaccurate disclosures on Form ADV Part 1 or Part 2A, late modifications to Form ADVs, faulty and late Form PF filings, and faulty and late Form D filings.

Continue reading ›

|

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued two new sets of FAQ guidance regarding the revised definition of fiduciary investment advice under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), as well as the new prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs). The first set of guidance is directed to retirement investors, not advisers, and answers basic questions investors may have regarding the new rule and how it will work. The second set of guidance is aimed at financial service providers and focuses mainly on the revised definition of fiduciary investment advice and the situations in which fiduciary duties will or will not attach under the new rule.

While the first set of FAQ guidance is not necessarily aimed at financial service providers, it did provide a few useful insights that I will briefly discuss here. The DOL stated that the new rule does not require advisers to indiscriminately move clients from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts, and instead requires advisers to act in the client’s best interest when deciding what type of account to recommend. Regarding the best interest requirement, the DOL clarified that providing investment advice in a client’s best interest does not mean that advisers have a duty to find the best possible investment product for clients out of all the investments available in the marketplace. Continue reading ›

|

On November 17, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) issued a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (“AWC”), in which Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (“Oppenheimer”) agreed to settle numerous charges.  Pursuant to the AWC, Oppenheimer will be fined $1.575 million.  It will also be required to make remediation payments of $703,122 to seven arbitration claimants and $1,142,619 to customers who qualified for but did not receive applicable sales charge waivers pertaining to mutual funds.

Many of the violations related to FINRA Rule 4530. Rule 4530(f) requires FINRA members promptly to provide FINRA with copies of certain civil complaints and arbitration claims.  Rule 4530(b) provides that if a FINRA member realizes that it or an associated person has violated any securities or investment-related laws that have widespread or potential widespread impact to the firm, the member must notify FINRA.  The notification should take place within either 30 calendar days after the determination is made or 30 calendar days after it reasonably should have been made.

According to FINRA’s findings, Oppenheimer failed to file in excess of 350 of these required filings.  Moreover, FINRA found that when Oppenheimer did make the required filings, the disclosures were, on average, more than four years late.

Continue reading ›

|

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently denied a motion brought by the National Association for Fixed Annuities (NAFA) to enjoin the implementation of the new Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule. This is the first court decision on a legal challenge to the rule. There are currently several other lawsuits against the DOL seeking to overrule the new DOL fiduciary rule that await decision.

NAFA is an insurance trade association that represents insurance companies, independent marketing organizations, and individual insurance agents. NAFA has been very vocal in its opposition to the new DOL fiduciary rule, stating that the new rule will have “catastrophic consequences for the fixed indexed annuities industry” and that meeting the April 2017 deadline is “almost an impossibility for the industry.” Along with other opponents to the rule, NAFA believes the rule will lead to higher compliance costs and will greatly increase litigation risk.

Continue reading ›

|

In October 2015, the Financial Services Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) requested comments on a proposal (“Proposal”) to amend its Customer Account Information Rule (“Rule 4512”) and to adopt a new Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults Rule (“Proposed Rule 2165”).  Based on a study published in 2011 and a survey published in 2013, FINRA determined that financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults is a serious and growing problem that must be addressed.  As of now, a small number of states have already enacted legislation that is designed to help detect and prevent financial exploitation of seniors.  As discussed previously,  the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) recently adopted a model act that is intended to provide states with guidance for drafting legislation or regulations to protect seniors and other vulnerable adults from financial exploitation.

FINRA, however, believes there needs to be a uniform, national standard regarding a financial institution’s obligations in helping to prevent financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults.  Thus, FINRA first published its Proposal in October 2015 and requested comments on it.  After receiving 40 comment letters from both individuals and institutions, FINRA filed the Proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2016.  The SEC began a comment period on November 7, 2016, and it will end on November 28, 2016.

The proposed amendments to Rule 4512 and Proposed Rule 2165 pertain to the accounts of “Specified Adults.”  A “Specified Adult” is defined as “a natural person age 65 or older or a natural person age 18 or older who the member reasonably believes has a mental or physical impairment that renders the individual unable to protect his or her own interests.”  Thus, the Proposal applies to accounts held by seniors and other vulnerable adults.

Continue reading ›

|

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently released its first set of rolling FAQ guidance regarding its new rules expanding the definition of fiduciary investment advice under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), adopting new prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs), and amending certain previously existing PTEs. The DOL answered questions regarding the new PTEs and the amendments to existing PTEs under ERISA and the Code. The DOL also reaffirmed the applicability date of April 10, 2017, stating that this date provided adequate time for financial service providers to adjust to the rule changes.

One common area of confusion regarding the new rules was the extent to which the new Best Interest Contract (BIC) exemption would be available for use by discretionary investment managers. One of the conditions to use of the BIC exemption is that the fiduciary not have any discretionary authority or control with respect to the recommended transaction. This excludes a large portion of investment advisers that serve as discretionary investment managers. However, there are limited circumstances in which they can receive protection under the BIC exemption.

Continue reading ›

|

Earlier this year, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) adopted a proposed model legislation or regulation (“Model Act”) aimed at protecting vulnerable adults from financial exploitation.  A 2010 survey by the Investor Protection Trust Elder Fund Society found that one out of every five United States citizens age sixty-five and over has been a victim of financial fraud.  As a result, the protection of vulnerable adults, such as senior investors, from financial exploitation has been one of NASAA’s priorities.

The Model Act is entitled “NASAA Model Legislation or Regulation to Protect Vulnerable Adults From Financial Exploitation.”  It is designed to protect “eligible adults.”  An “eligible adult” is defined as a person age sixty-five years or older, or a person subject to a state’s Adult Protective Services statute, such as disabled or impaired persons. Continue reading ›

|

The Massachusetts Securities Division (the “Division”) recently issued regulatory guidance for state investment advisers who use third-party robo-advisers to provide advisory services to clients.  Robo-advisers have enjoyed a significant growth in popularity in the financial services industry based on perceived simplicity, ease of accessibility, and ability to service investment advisory clients who may not have sufficient assets to begin a relationship with a traditional investment adviser.  As discussed previously, the Division issued a policy statement in April 2016 declaring that because automated robo-advisers cannot provide fiduciary duties to clients as traditional human investment advisers can, the Division will evaluate their Massachusetts registration applications on a case-by-case basis.

The new regulatory guidance provides that to the extent a state-registered investment adviser (“state-registered adviser”) uses a third-party robo-adviser’s services to provide asset allocation and trading functions to clients, the state-registered adviser must meet a minimum of six requirements.  These six requirements are as follows: Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2987 Clairmont Rd
#200
Atlanta, GA 30329
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design