Enforcement

Advisers Who Did Not File 13F Reports Face SEC Scrutiny

October 3, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

Last month, the SEC announced a series of settled enforcement actions against investment advisers who routinely failed to file 13F and 13H reports with the Commission. The actions are tied to the SEC’s announced examination priority to assess the accuracy and completeness of regulatory filings.

Depending on the frequency, aggregate amount of transacted securities, types of securities, or value of securities an investment adviser advises, advisers registered with the SEC are subject to many filing requirements. Of these, the most common are the 13F and 13H reports required pursuant to Section 13 of the Exchange Act.

SEC Announces Enforcement Activity Under New Marketing Rule

September 19, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

Last week, the SEC announced a series of enforcement actions tied to its ongoing sweep of investment adviser compliance with the new Marketing Rule. In total, nine firms settled claims that they violated Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1, the “new Marketing Rule,” resulting in $1,240,000 in civil penalties.

We have previously written about the implementation of the new Marketing Rule, the announcement of the corresponding examination sweep program, and the subsequent enforcement actions that have resulted. While the previous enforcement actions have largely centered around investment advisers who have failed to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the new Marketing Rule, the recent enforcement actions give greater insight into the real-world application of the new Marketing Rule. Namely, the actions detail marketing violations due to the use of third-party ratings by the investment advisers.

FinCEN Adopts Rules AML Rules for Investment Advisers

September 10, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) adopted final rules to bring the majority of the investment advisory industry under the reporting requirements for illicit finance activity. The update brings “investment advisers,” as defined under the new rule, within the definition of “financial institution” for regulation under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).

The BSA has long attempted to safeguard the US financial system by monitoring and reporting certain activities and transactions. Under the new FinCEN Rule, certain investment advisers have the same regulatory requirements historically reserved for banks, broker-dealers, money transmitters, and casinos.

SEC Announces Enforcement Results for 2023

December 7, 2023 | Charlie Jarrett

With the end of the federal government’s fiscal year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) once again recently released results from the enforcement program, covering November 2022 through October 2023. The release included cumulative totals and highlighted individual cases and enforcement areas of concentration. The annual release serves as a roadmap for where the SEC is spending its resources, and what conduct will likely lead to enforcement actions.

During fiscal year 2023, the SEC’s Enforcement Division filed 3% more total enforcement actions than during 2022. This included an 8% increase in “stand-alone,” or original actions, along with increases in the number of “follow-on” administrative proceedings. These “follow-on” actions are typically filed after an associated criminal, civil, or other regulatory action, and look to impact an individual’s ability to conduct business in the securities industry.

SEC Fines 9 RIAs for Marketing Rule Violations

September 19, 2023 | Steve Parker

Last week, the SEC brought and simultaneously settled nine (9) administrative enforcement actions against separate RIAs for violating Rule 206(4)-1, the “Marketing Rule,” and specifically the restrictions relating to the use of hypothetical performance. The firms were Artemis Wealth Advisors, LLC; Trowbridge Capital Partners, LLC; MRA Advisory Group; McElhenny Sheffield Capital Management, LLC; Macroclimate, LLC; Linden Thomas Advisory Services, LLC; Hansen & Associates Financial Group, Inc.; Elm Partners Management, LLC; BTS Asset Management Inc. and Banorte Asset Management, Inc.

The sanctioned advisory firms all continued to advertise the returns of model portfolios beyond the November 2022 mandatory compliance date without implementing procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the new rule. For instance, the firms failed to implement policies and procedures designed to ensure that the performance was relevant to the likely financial situation and investment objectives of the intended audience. Continue reading ›

SEC Fines Adviser Under New Marketing Rule

September 5, 2023 | Katherine Oberlies

On August 21, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order imposing civil monetary penalties against Titan Global Capital Management USA LLC (“Titan”) for violations of the new investment adviser Marketing Rule, Rule 206(4)-1. The new rule had a mandatory compliance date of November 4, 2022, but advisers could voluntarily adopt the rule sooner.

Titan elected to comply with the new rule in June 2021; however, the firm did not adopt new policies and procedures or adapt its practices as required by the new rule. Between August 2021 and October 2022, Titan violated the new Marketing Rule by advertising hypothetical performance without adopting policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the hypothetical performance was relevant to client’s or prospective client’s financial situation and investment objectives and also by failing to provide information underlying the hypothetical performance as required by the new rule. Continue reading ›

SEC Enforcement Case Highlights Pitfalls Of Private Fund Advisory Fees

July 13, 2023 | Katherine Oberlies

On June 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order against Insight Venture Management LLC (“Insight”). The SEC and Insight settled the matter to resolve allegations that the adviser charged excessive management fees caused by the adviser’s inaccurate application of its “permanent impairment” policy and that the adviser failed to disclose a conflict of interest related to these fee calculations.

Insight is an adviser that advises private equity funds. Limited partnership agreements (“agreements”) associated with some of these private equity funds stated that Insight charged management fees during the funds’ post-commitment period—the period during which a fund manager manages and looks to exit funds’ investments—based on the investor’s pro rata share of the funds’ invested capital. The agreements further stated that if Insight determined an investment suffered a “permanent impairment” in value, the adviser would remove an amount equal to the difference between the acquisition cost and the impaired value of the investment. This amount would be paid from the funds’ invested capital, which would in turn reduce the basis used to calculate fees paid by the fund to Insight. The agreements allotted Insight discretion to reverse the “permanent impairment” determination if the investment increased in value thereafter.
Continue reading ›

SEC Settles Charges Against RIA for Failure to Review Wrap Fee Programs

February 16, 2023 | Katherine Oberlies

On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order settling charges against Kovak Advisors, Inc. (“Kovak”), for compliance failures related to its wrap fee program. The case highlights how important it is for an investment adviser to adopt and follow policies and procedures relating to any wrap fee program, to ensure that the adviser’s services are in the client’s best interest.

From 2015 through August 2018, Kovak offered advisory services to clients through a wrap fee program. Clients that participated in the wrap fee program paid a fee that included asset management, trade execution, and other costs. The SEC made three findings during the time Kovak offered the wrap fee program.
Continue reading ›

SEC Announces Enforcement Action Against Investment Adviser for Custody Violations

February 8, 2023 | Charlie Jarrett

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settled enforcement action against a registered investment adviser for violating the Custody Rule and for compliance violations associated with custody. The enforcement action, coupled with the SEC’s announcement, shows the significance that the SEC places on the safeguarding of client assets.

An investment adviser has custody when it holds client funds or securities or has the ability to obtain possession of such assets, directly or indirectly. In general, the custody rules and regulations are intended to protect client assets from misappropriation or misuse by their investment adviser. As a result, it is considered a prohibited act for an investment adviser to have custody of client funds or securities without implementing policies and procedures specifically designed to comply with the rules and regulations and prevent misuse of the assets. These policies and procedures include notice to client in certain situations, identification of the qualified custodian, and obtaining an audit or verification by an independent CPA of the client assets subject to custody. Custody can be further imparted to an investment adviser through a related party of the investment adviser.

SEC Enforcement Case Highlights Importance of Conflict of Interest Disclosure

January 30, 2023 | Steve Parker

In this first quarter of the year, most investment advisers are working diligently to complete and file their annual updating amendment to Form ADV, including Part 2A, commonly called the “Brochure.” One of the most important requirements in drafting a Brochure is to make sure that all conflicts of interests, together with a description of how the conflict is mitigated or addressed, are fully and fairly disclosed. An administrative action brought by the SEC and settled last week illustrates, and should serve to underscore, the importance of identifying and disclosing such conflicts.

The SEC charged registered investment adviser Moors & Cabot (“M&C”) with breaching its fiduciary duty to investment advisory clients by failing to disclose conflicts of interest relating to revenue sharing payments and other financial incentives that the adviser received from two clearing brokers. The financial benefits included discounts, incentive credits and shared revenue that were contingent upon M&C meeting certain thresholds in total assets maintained in FDIC-insure bank deposit cash sweeps. M&C also received a share of margin interest the clearing firms charged to M&C’s clients who maintained margin loans. M&C also received a portion of postage and handling fees that one of the clearing brokers charged to its clients.