Industry News

Private Placement Brokers Should Be Legalized Along with M&A Brokers

January 21, 2015 | Dan MacIntyre

In 2005, an American Bar Association task force published an exhaustively researched report that highlighted a huge “gray market” of unregistered brokerage activity, conducted by people that sometimes refer to themselves as “finders,” that is critical to the development of early stage companies, but operating in technical violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“ABA Report”). Other than occasional enforcement actions against bad actors, the SEC did little to address this problem until early 2014, when it issued a No-Action letter which blessed certain restricted activities of merger and acquisition brokers (“M&A Brokers”). The SEC’s approach to other private placement brokers has been to restrict their activities even further. Compare Paul Anka, SEC No-Action Letter (July 24, 1991) (granting legal “finder” status) with Brumberg, Mackey & Wall, PLC., SEC No-Action Letter (May 17, 2010) (restricting “finder” status). Courts have not always agreed with the SEC. See SEC v. Kramer, 778 F.Supp.2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (proposing a non-exhaustive six-factor test for registration).

On January 6th, the first day of the 114th Congress’s new session, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 37. This bill proposes again multiple pieces of legislation that passed the House in the previous congress but were not taken up by the Senate. The bill has now been remanded to the House Committee process. H.R. 37 contains eleven separate items which would affect the current financial regulatory landscape. One of the proposed provisions responds to concerns about financial intermediaries such as finders that participate in mergers and acquisitions. This blog post advocates that Congress, while considering legalization of M&A Brokers, should also legalize a limited class of private placement brokers.
Continue reading ›

SEC to Conduct Presence Exams for Never-Before Examined Investment Advisers in 2015

January 20, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

During the January 7th Practising Law Institute conference on Hedge Fund Compliance and Regulatory Challenges, the Director of the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”), Andrew Bowden, previewed some of the new priorities on which the SEC will focus in 2015. Some of the areas of focus include protecting investors, specifically those in or close to retirement, cyber security, and the use of data analytics to identify potential wrongdoers. One of the other priorities discussed was OCIE’s new initiative to use “presence exams” to examine certain investment advisers that have never been examined. Investment advisers who have been registered with the SEC for three or more years will potentially be selected for a presence exam.

Presence exams are less intensive, shorter exams, taking up about two-thirds the time of a regular SEC examination. These exams tend to be more narrow in scope and focus on specific areas of concern that the SEC may have. In October 2012, SEC staff created presence exams for investment advisers who were required to register with the SEC for the first time because of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). These newly required SEC registrants under Dodd-Frank included, for example, hedge fund advisers with more than $150 million in assets under management. Bowden stated that the SEC performed close to 400 of these exams and that OCIE’s goal to examine 25% of the investment advisers required to register with the SEC under Dodd-Frank by 2014 was met.
Continue reading ›

SEC to Focus on Variable Annuities and Alternative Mutual Funds in 2015

December 22, 2014 | Chadd Reynolds

Last month at the American Law Institute’s Conference on Life Insurance Company Products, the chief of the SEC’s Office of Compliance, Inspections, and Examinations (“OCIE”) informed attendees that the agency will increase its focus on variable annuities during 2015. Also attending the conference was the Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management (“DIM”), who discussed his views on how to address concerns created by new trends in variable annuities and the recent growth of alternative mutual funds.

One of the reasons for the increased focus on variable annuities is that broker-dealers are beginning to sell more and more of these products to their clients, said the SEC’s chief of OCIE. As a result, OCIE exams will include discussions with broker-dealers about what the insurance companies are telling them about the products they provide to make sure broker-dealers understand the products they are selling and are accurately explaining the products to their clients.
Continue reading ›

New Indiana Crowdfunding Act Exemptions

September 9, 2014 | Bryan Gort

The Indiana Securities Division recently issued an emergency rule to explain new distinctions in Indiana’s crowdfunding exemptions, which became effective July 1, 2014. Indiana’s new rule is similar to Georgia’s “Invest Georgia” rule, which we have previously profiled.

The Invest Indiana Crowdfunding Exemption, Sec. 23-19-2-2(27), permits Indiana-organized entities to offer or sell securities for intrastate offerings to Indiana residents only. The exemption requires the Indiana-organized entity to file with the Indiana Securities Division SEC Form D, which clearly states “Indiana Only” on the first page, and to include a cover letter identifying that the filing is for the 23-19-2-2 (27) exemption, and to include a $100 filing fee. The Exemption details the requirements for both issuers and investors in regards to an Invest Indiana offering.
Continue reading ›

SEC Approves FINRA Self-Trading Rule

May 28, 2014 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 5210. The rule now requires member broker-dealers to implement and enforce policies and procedures “reasonably designed” to monitor and prevent “self-trading” activity. See SEC Release No. 34-72067.

The rule, in its amended form, is designed to provide FINRA with increased ability to monitor and limit the “unintentional” interaction of orders that come from the same firm. This issue is distinct from any self-trading that are the products of fraudulent or manipulative design. Rather, FINRA’s rule will attempt to limit the misleading impact that this unintentional self-trading has on marketplace data and trade volume of a security.

The rule change will place new restrictions on self-trading activity that occurs as a result from one or related algorithms or that originate in one or related trading desks. Self-trading, as used by FINRA, does not result in a change in beneficial ownership and may or may not be a bona fide trade. The agency believes that self-trading, even conducted without fraudulent or manipulative intent, may be disruptive to the marketplace and distort information on a given security. The agency points to data it has collected that show self-trading of this kind may account for five percent or more of a security’s daily trading volume.
Continue reading ›

Public Solicitations on Rule 506 offerings

February 7, 2014 | Bryan Gort

Several Congressmen and an SEC Commissioner have independently urged the SEC to move forward with adopting proposed rules that impose additional requirements on public solicitations of Rule 506 offerings. At the same time that the SEC finalized its initial rulemaking on the subject last September, it proposed additional rules that would require filing Form D prior to any general solicitation and would impose advertising restrictions, among other things. We discussed that action and the proposed rules in two earlier posts.

Rule 506 was adopted as a safe harbor under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides that securities sold “by an issuer not involving any public offering” are exempt from registration under the Act. However, under Title II of the JOBS Act, passed in 2012, Congress required the SEC to adopt a rule allowing for the use of public solicitation in those offerings under conditions to be prescribed by the SEC. The initial rule adopted last September – requiring enhanced verification of accredited investor status – was the Commission’s first small step on the issue.

The comment period on the simultaneous rule proposal imposing additional requirements expired on November 4, 2013, but the Commission has taken no further action to date. On December 5, 2013, however, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar, speaking at a Consumer Federation of America conference, forcefully called upon the rest of the Commission to move forward in adopting the strengthened rules. “Every day that these proposals are not adopted is another day that investors face great harm. I’m frustrated because investors are going to be damaged” said Commissioner Aguilar. “Unfortunately, it’s been almost five months since those proposals have been issued for comment.”
Continue reading ›

SEC Enforcement Actions in 2013

January 27, 2014 | Bryan Gort

The SEC has released the results of the 686 2013 enforcement actions it filed in federal court, which resulted in $3.4 billion in sanctions against offenders. Of the $3.4 billion, securities violators were required to disgorge illegal profits of approximately $2.257 billion and pay penalties of approximately $1.167 billion. The chairperson of the SEC, Mary Jo White, stated, “A strong enforcement program helps produce financial markets that operate with integrity and transparency, and reassures investors that they can invest with confidence.”

The 2013 total sanction amount is 10 percent higher than 2012 and 22 percent higher than 2011. In 2013, the SEC pursued many categories of enforcement actions including:

– Broker-dealers (121)
– Delinquent Filings (132)
– Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (5)
– Financial Fraud/Issuer Disclosure (68)
– Insider Trading (44)
– Investment Adviser/Investment Co. (140)
– Market Manipulation (50)
– Securities Offering (103)
– Other (23)

The SEC highlighted certain enforcement programs on which they had focused in 2013 and programs that they will emphasize for the foreseeable future. The SEC is focused on making sure gatekeepers, people that have special duties to ensure that the interests of investors are protected, safeguard and protect investors’ rights.
Continue reading ›

SEC Proposes More Rules and Oversight for Public Rule 506 Offerings

January 3, 2014 | Bob Terry

On the same day that it released rule amendments allowing some Rule 506 offerings to be sold through public solicitation, the SEC proposed an additional set of rule amendments for those offerings. While the newly adopted rule primarily concerns verification of accredited investor status, the additional proposals relate more to the materials used by issuers to solicit those investors.

Currently, offerings under Regulation D require a Form D to be filed 15 days after the first sale; no prefiling is required. The proposal, however, would require that any offering to be sold using general solicitation would require that Form D be filed with the SEC 15 days prior to any solicitation. The SEC has also proposed a temporary rule, Rule 510T, which would go further and require all solicitation material to be filed with the SEC prior to its first use. Under the proposal, this temporary rule would expire in two years.

In addition, the proposed rule changes would require solicitation materials to include legends informing recipients of certain facts relating to the securities offered, such as the requirement that all investors must be accredited, that regulators have not approved the offering and that the securities have transfer restrictions. The proposal also extends to private funds the Rule 156 requirements currently relating to investment company advertising materials.
Continue reading ›

Trust, but Verify: Public 506 Offerings Finally Approved, With Conditions

December 30, 2013 | Bob Terry

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently adopted long-awaited rule changes required by the 2012 Dodd-Frank Act that will allow some offerings under Rule 506 to be offered using general solicitation. At the same time, the SEC proposed a set of additional changes that would further regulate this new type of offering.

Offerings under Rule 506, which provides one of the three operative safe harbor offering alternatives under Regulation D, have been prohibited from using any form of public solicitation since the rule’s inception in 1982. However, Congress responded to calls from industry seeking easier and less expensive ways to raise investment capital by creating the “crowdfunding” exemption and by loosening the public solicitation prohibition for Rule 506 offerings.

The rule amendment creates a new subsection 506(c), which provides that public solicitation is allowed if the offering is limited to accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify each investor’s accredited status. Although the rule does not enumerate specific verification procedures or even create a defined safe harbor, the issuing release describes a “principles-based” approach to verification and discusses a number of verification alternatives that may be considered adequate.
Continue reading ›

States Report RIA Enforcement Cases Doubled in 2011

August 27, 2012 | Steve Parker

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) released preliminary numbers this month showing that the number of enforcement cases brought by state regulators doubled during 2011. During that year, states brought about 400 cases compared to 208 cases brought during 2010. This increase is due in large part to an expansion of state examinations as a result of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Dodd-Frank gave the states examination authority for some approximately 2,400 “mid-sized” advisers (firms with less than $100 million in assets under management) which are required to switch from SEC to state registration.

As a result of the switch, some former SEC firms that haven’t been examined in many years, if ever, by the SEC now find themselves subject to a state examination and can also look forward to being examined by the state more frequently.
Continue reading ›