Compliance

Louisiana Adopts Amendments to Written Examination Requirements for Investment Adviser Representatives

September 29, 2016 | Elizabeth Dalziel

The Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions recently adopted amendments to the written examination requirements that enable investment adviser representatives to be registered with the Louisiana Securities Commissioner. These amendments became effective on September 1, 2016. The Office of Financial Institutions explained that the amendments were adopted to ensure that all investment advisers are properly qualified to provide investment advice to Louisiana’s citizens.

The amendments that the Office of Financial Institutions made are detailed in LAC 10:XIII.1301-1311, Investment Adviser Registration Procedure. The amendments are as follows: Continue reading ›

SEC Continues Increased Focus on RIA Performance Advertising

September 19, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The F-Squared Investments matter continues to have far-reaching consequences for those investment advisers who used F-Squared’s falsely inflated and improperly labeled backtested performance results in advertisements. As discussed previously, in November of 2015 Virtus Investment Advisers was fined $16.5 million for including the false and misleading performance results in its own advertisements and filings with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). More recently, the SEC charged Cantella & Co. (“Cantella”), a Boston-based investment adviser that licensed F-Squared’s Alpha Sector strategy, with securities violations for employing F-Squared’s false track record in its marketing materials.

F-Squared is an investment adviser that creates and markets index products using exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”). It sub-licenses these indexes to various unaffiliated investment advisers who manage assets pursuant to those indexes. In 2014 F-Squared admitted in a settled SEC administrative proceeding that it had materially misrepresented the performance results of its largest ETF strategy, AlphaSector, by labeling these results as actual results from a seven-year period when they were in fact hypothetical results derived through backtesting. In addition, F-Squared claimed that the strategy had outperformed the S&P 500 Index from 2001 to 2008 when in fact the hypothetical data contained a calculation error that falsely inflated results by 350 percent. F-Squared agreed to pay disgorgement of $30 million and a penalty of $5 million to settle the claim.

Court Affirms SEC’s Sanction of Investment Adviser Over Fraudulent Performance Advertising

September 7, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently denied a petition to review an order of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) imposing sanctions against Raymond J. Lucia and investment adviser Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (“Lucia Companies”) for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the advertising rule thereunder, Rule 206(4)-1. In denying the motion, the DC Circuit affirmed the SEC’s broadened views on the use of back-tested performance in marketing and advertising materials.

As discussed previously, this case involves the improper use by an investment adviser of back-tested performance data in retirement-planning seminars. Raymond J. Lucia, and Lucia Companies allegedly used a hypothetical inflation rate that was lower than actual historical rates to make their performance results more favorable. In addition, the performance data allegedly failed to reflect the deduction of advisory fees and was not calculated in a manner fully consistent with the advertised investment strategy. As a result, the SEC barred Raymond J. Lucia from the securities industry and imposed civil penalties of $300,000.

Private Equity Fund Adviser Sanctioned for Acting as Unregistered Broker-Dealer

July 28, 2016 | Steve Parker

Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sanctioned a registered investment adviser and its managing member for violating the Investment Adviser’s Act of 1940 (“Adviser’s Act”) and for acting as an unregistered broker-dealer in connection with the services the adviser provided to a private fund that it managed and the fees charged for those services.

Blackstreet Capital Management, LLC (“Blackstreet”) serves as the manager of two private equity funds (the “Funds”). In the Funds’ governing documents, Blackstreet disclosed to the Funds’ investors that it would charge fees for brokerage services rendered in connection with acquiring portfolio companies. Blackstreet did, in fact, perform brokerage services including soliciting transactions, identifying buyers and sellers, negotiating and structuring transactions, arranging for financing, and executing transactions. In exchange for those services it received over $1.8 million.

SEC Fines Broker-Dealer for Failing to Protect Confidential Client Information

July 19, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Increased focus on cybersecurity by the Security Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) continues as it recently issued charges against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (“Morgan Stanley”) for failing to adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect confidential client information. These charges stemmed from a cybersecurity breach which began in 2011 and continued until 2014, resulting in the misappropriation of confidential client information in over 730,000 client accounts.

Broker-dealers and investment advisers are required pursuant to Regulation S-P and comparable regulation of the Federal Trade Commission to adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect client records and information. These policies and procedures must address the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards in place, and must be reasonably designed to insure the security and confidentiality of client records and information, protect against unanticipated threats, and prevent unauthorized access.

SEC Charges Private Fund Administrator with Failure to Satisfy Gatekeeper Responsibilities

June 28, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently settled charges against a New Jersey private fund administrator, Apex Fund Services (“Apex”), for failing to notice or correct what it contended were clear indications of fraud by two of its clients, ClearPath Wealth Management (“ClearPath”) and EquityStar Capital Management (“EquityStar”). The SEC’s Division of Enforcement noted that Apex failed to “live up to its gatekeeper responsibility” and thereby enabled the fraudulent activities of these two investment advisers.

Apex provided accounting and administrative services to various private funds, including several managed by ClearPath and EquityStar. Its duties as fund administrator included keeping records, preparing financial statements, and preparing investor account statements. The SEC charged both ClearPath and EquityStar with securities fraud in enforcement actions, finding that ClearPath had allegedly misappropriated fund assets and used fund assets for unauthorized investments, and that EquityStar had allegedly made materially false and misleading statements to investors and prospective investors of its funds regarding undisclosed withdrawals of fund assets.

SEC Charges NC Investment Adviser Selling Real Estate-Related Investments with Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

June 16, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently filed suit against a North Carolina investment adviser for allegedly defrauding investors in the sale of certain real estate-related investments in unregistered pooled investment vehicles. The adviser, Richard W. Davis Jr., solicited investors primarily from the Charlotte, North Carolina region and was able to raise approximately $11.5 million from 85 investors, the majority of which were individuals with retirement accounts. However, he allegedly failed to disclose to clients that the money in the funds was being steered towards several other entities beneficially owned by himself.

Davis allegedly told investors in one of his funds that the fund’s capital would be invested in short term fully secured loans to real estate developers. He allegedly failed to mention, however, that many of the real estate developers receiving these loans were companies owned and operated by himself, creating an inherent conflict of interest. Furthermore, the companies never repaid the loans in full and Davis allegedly failed to inform his investors of this or reappraise the value of the fund’s investment. Instead, Davis allegedly misrepresented the value of the pooled fund by repeatedly stating that it had not lost any value.

SEC Issues Report on Review of Definition of “Accredited Investor”

June 14, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) must review the definition of “accredited investor” every four years to determine whether it needs to be modified or adjusted. The SEC staff recently conducted its first review and issued a Report on the Review of the Definition of “Accredited Investor.”

The report provides an in-depth examination of the history of the “accredited investor” definition and discusses possible alternative approaches. The report also responds to comments on the existing definition received from various financial services industry participants, including the Investor Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. Lastly, the report provides recommendations for potential updates and/or modifications to the existing definition.

Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Signal Shift Towards Closer Scrutiny on Chief Compliance Officers

June 3, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Chief Compliance Officers (“CCOs”) play an important role in registered investment adviser firms, as they are responsible for ensuring the firm is developing adequate compliance programs and following its compliance policies and procedures. In the past, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has generally avoided second-guessing the professional judgment of CCOs. However, recent SEC enforcement actions show a clear trend towards growing scrutiny over the conduct of CCOs and towards enforcement actions being taken against them.

Two high-profile cases from 2015 illustrate the shift in the SEC’s tone towards CCOs. First, in an April enforcement action against BlackRock Advisors the SEC charged the firm with failing to disclose the outside business interests of one of the firm’s portfolio managers to its board of directors or advisory clients, as well as failing to adopt any policies and procedures addressing outside business activities. In addition, the SEC also charged the then-CCO for causing BlackRock’s compliance-related violations by failing to ensure the firm adopted the required policies and procedures. BlackRock settled the charges with a $12 million penalty, while the then-CCO paid $60,000.

SEC Issues No-Action Letter Lessening Custody Rule Requirements for Sub-Advisers

May 31, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently released a no-action letter allowing sub-advisers in certain situations to avoid the annual surprise examination requirement of Rule 206(4)-2 for investment advisers with custody of client funds or securities. Going forward, sub-advisers who do not have actual custody of client assets but are deemed to have custody because they are related to the qualified custodian and primary adviser will no longer have to comply with this burdensome requirement, so long as certain conditions are met.

As a review, custody is defined by Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 as the holding, directly or indirectly, of client funds or securities, or having any authority to obtain possession of them. This includes situations where a “related person,” or a person controlled by you or under common control with you, has custody of client funds. Pursuant to SEC Rule 206(4)-2, investment advisers with custody of client funds must take certain steps to safeguard such client assets. Those steps include: 1) maintaining assets with a qualified custodian; 2) notifying clients about the qualified custodian; 3) ensuring that the qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements to client; and 4) obtaining an annual surprise examination by an independent public accountant.