Compliance

SEC Publishes Guidance on Avoiding Mischaracterization of 12b-1 Fees

February 3, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently published guidance on the characterization of mutual fund fees, specifically 12b-1 distribution fees and sub-accounting fees, as part of their ongoing Distribution-in-Guise Initiative. Pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, payments made by mutual funds (“funds”), to financial intermediaries from fund assets for the distribution of fund shares must be paid pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 plan that has been approved and adopted by the fund’s shareholders and Board of Directors (“Board”). In recent years the SEC has noticed that there are various fees being paid to intermediaries, in addition to distribution fees, that are being characterized as non-distribution-related fees and are not being paid pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 plan. Those fees include sub-transfer agent fees, administrative sub-accounting fees, and other shareholder servicing fees (collectively “sub-accounting fees”).

While these sub-accounting fees may in some cases be valid non-distribution-related fees, if they directly or indirectly compensate at all for any distribution-related activities, they are improperly labeled. Because of the importance of this issue given that fund fees directly impact investor returns and inherently involve conflicts of interest, the SEC has published guidance to assist funds in ensuring that distribution-related fees are being properly labeled and disclosed in a Rule 12b-1 plan as required. This potential problem was brought to the SEC’s attention after a recent sweep examination of various market participants including mutual funds, investment advisers, transfer agents, and broker-dealers.

Hedge Fund Manager Settles Charges with SEC for Overcharging on Fees and Overvaluing Assets

January 26, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

A Denver-based alternative fund manager was recently charged by the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with engaging in fraudulent behavior regarding the handling of its futures fund, The Frontier Fund (“TFF”). The alternative fund manager, Equinox Fund Management LLC (“Equinox”), allegedly overcharged management fees to its investors and overvalued certain assets.

Equinox is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC and thus owes its investors certain fiduciary duties, one of which is to act in the best interests of its investors by being accurate and complete with its registration statements and SEC filings. Equinox, however, allegedly failed to meet those duties by misrepresenting in their TFF registration statements that management fees were based on the net asset value of the assets, when in reality they were based on the notional trading value of the assets. The notional trading value takes into account both the amount invested and the amount of leverage used in the underlying investments, and is significantly higher than net asset value.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Form ADV Annual Updates

January 22, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

Filing annual updating amendments to Form ADV is an important requirement for all registered investment advisers. All information contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Form ADV must be both accurate and complete. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and state regulators have not hesitated in bringing enforcement actions against investment advisers who misrepresent or fail to disclose certain information in their annual filings and amendments.

Based on 1170 routine state-coordinated investment adviser examinations in 2015, as reported by the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”), the most common errors that are routinely found on Form ADVs include inconsistencies between Form ADV Part 1 and Part 2, inconsistencies between fees charged and fees listed on the ADV, inconsistencies between services provided and services described in ADV, misrepresentations in business description, overstatements or understatements of assets under management, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

Texas Securities Board Approves Advisory Payments to Retiring Advisers

December 28, 2015 | Steve Parker

In a letter dated December 11, 2015, the Texas State Securities Board (“Board”) granted a no-action request by Managed Financial Service Corporation, Inc. (“MFSC”) that paves the way for a retiring investment adviser representative to receive continuing compensation after retirement. The Board confirmed that it would not commence or seek enforcement proceedings against either MFSC or a specified retiring investment adviser representative if certain procedures were followed. MFSC and its retiring representative requested the no-action letter in order to implement a plan under which the retiring representative would continue to receive compensation derived from the residual value of the work as an investment adviser for certain accounts.

The no-action was requested based on a concern, predominant in the investment adviser industry, that receipt by a retired adviser representative of ongoing advisory fees or a portion of advisory fees received by a successor adviser or firm would subject the retired representative to discipline for conducting business without registration.

The no-action relief granted by the Board is similar to the practice in the brokerage industry that has been codified in FINRA Rule 2040 (b) in which, prior to that date, was sanctioned by a FINRA no-action letter issued to Merrill Lynch in March 2012.
Continue reading ›

FinCEN Proposes AML Requirements for RIAs

December 22, 2015 | Steve Parker

Although there is currently no requirement that registered investment advisers maintain anti-money laundering programs pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) or any of the other acts that apply to certain financial institutions, that may change if the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes and Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) adopts a rule proposed earlier this year. Specifically, the proposed rule would subject investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to formal AML compliance program adoption and reporting requirements. The rule, if adopted, would expand the current definitions of “financial institutions” to cover SEC-registered advisers. The rule would require compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and the USA PATRIOT Act, resulting in an adviser being required to establish AML compliance programs, file suspicious activity reports, and keep records relating to AML activity, among other things.

Currently, most registered investment advisers do adopt policies relating to AML and suspicious activity reporting procedures, even though they are not so required by law or regulation. In a sense, it has become a “best practice” to do so. Practically speaking, because all investment advisers conduct activity on behalf of their clients through qualified custodians, broker-dealers, and other financial intermediaries that are expressly covered by the PATRIOT Act, the BSA and other laws, AML, the intermediaries who partner with investment advisers usually require such advisers to have AML and suspicious activity reporting programs or procedures in place as a means of aiding the broker or other primarily responsible firm fulfilling its obligations.
Continue reading ›

SEC Announces Cybersecurity Enforcement Action Against RIA

October 27, 2015 | Alison Burns

On September 22, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced an important cybersecurity enforcement action that has broad implications to registered investment advisers. In a Settlement Order, the SEC found R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management, a St. Louis-based investment adviser, “willfully violated” the Safeguards Rule. From September 2009 through July 2013, the firm stored unencrypted, sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”) of clients and others on its unencrypted, third party-hosted, web server.

In requiring that brokers-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers guard against cybersecurity breaches, the SEC has relied on its authority under Sections 501, 504, and 505 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, to create the new regulations. The “Safeguard Rule” is Rule 30(a) of Regulation S-P (17 C.F.R. § 248.30(a)). Enforcement actions initiated by the SEC relating to computer security are often grounded in violations of the Safeguard Rule.
Continue reading ›

State Investment Adviser and Securities Regulators Hold Annual Conference

October 6, 2015 | Steve Parker

Parker MacIntyre attorneys Steve Parker and Bryan Gort attended the 2015 annual conference of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) held last week in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As usual, the conference provided valuable guidance and updated information on areas of importance to state-registered investment advisers, as well as federal notice filed broker-dealers and SEC registered investment advisers.

Of interest to state-registered investment advisers are proposed amendments to Part 1B of Form ADV that would attempt to capture an RIA’s use of social media and information on the use of third-party compliance professionals.

NASAA also presented the findings of its 2015 coordinated investment adviser examination review, compiled from the results of over 1100 investment adviser examinations. Once again, books and records deficiencies was the leading category, with 78% of all examined entities having deficiencies in that area. Within that category the failure to maintain adequate client suitability data was the leading deficiency, accounting for 10% of the deficiencies noted within the books and record category.
Continue reading ›

SEC Judge Rules on the Extent of Liability for Compliance Officers

October 6, 2015 | Alison Burns

On August 5th, 2015 in a decision that has implications for registered investment advisers and broker-dealers, SEC judge Cameron Elliot ruled on an enforcement action regarding the extent of liability for Compliance Officers in In the Matter of Judy K. Wolf, available here. Sanctions were not imposed against Ms. Wolf due to the violation being “decisively outweighed by the remaining public interest factors: egregiousness, degree of harm, and deterrence.” However, it was found that Wolf purposefully lied about her records violation.

In In the Matter of Judy K. Wolf, Judge Elliot stated he believed the further sanction against Wolf would be pursuit of “the low-hanging fruit” that is compliance officers.
Continue reading ›

OCIE Announces 2015 Priorities in Second Round of Cybersecurity Examinations: New Risks for Securities Firms in Cybersecurity Compliance

October 1, 2015 | Alison Burns

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on Sept. 15, 2015 issued Risk Alert to announce its new focus on cybersecurity of securities firms and registered investment advisers. Cybersecurity programs of securities firms had best be strengthened, otherwise they may be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny according to the Risk Alert, which is meant to serve as helpful guidance for firms that need to create or heighten a cybersecurity program. The National Exam Program in 2014 conducted cybersecurity examinations on 106 securities firms. As a follow-up to the 2014 SEC security examinations The Risk Alert highlights certain additional measures the national registered entities need to be aware of when the SEC is conducting examinations.

A sample examination request with a list of information that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations may review in conducting examinations of registered entities regarding cybersecurity matters may be viewed here.
Continue reading ›

SEC Enforcement Action Underscores Importance Of Gift Policies

September 16, 2015 | Steve Parker

A recent enforcement action settled in an administrative proceeding brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) underscores the importance for investment advisers to adopt and follow rules designed to prohibit inappropriate gifts to and from clients by investment adviser personnel. In a matter previously discussed on our blog, Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC (“Guggenheim”) settled charges, without admitting or denying any violations that it had failed to adopt, or implement reasonable compliance procedures as required by Rule 206(4)-7 under the Investment Adviser’s Act designed to regulate gifts and entertainment provided to and from the adviser or its personnel.

More specifically, the SEC’s Order instituting administrative proceedings recited that Guggenheim’s compliance manual adopted a rule that required supervised persons to seek and obtain approval of the Chief Compliance Officer before personnel could receive any gift above an established de minimis value that was defined in the manual as being $250.00 or less. Despite this policy, between 2009 and 2012 at least seven Guggenheim employees took 44 or more flights on private planes of Guggenheim clients, none of which were reported to the Chief Compliance Officer as required by the policy. The compliance log reflected only one such flight that was only recorded because the flight had been mentioned to the Chief Compliance Officer after the flight occurred. The Commission found that Guggenheim failed to enforce its own policies with respect to gifts and entertainment and failed to implement compliance policies and procedures regarding gifts and entertainment.
Continue reading ›