Investment Adviser

Investment Adviser and Principals Sanctioned for Compliance Failures

July 9, 2015 | Shay Virtue

In a matter underscoring how important it is for investment advisers to dedicate sufficient resources and attention to their compliance program, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has sanctioned a firm for multiple compliance failures. On June 23, 2015 the SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Pekin Singer Strauss, a registered investment advisor firm boasting approximately $1.07 billion in AUM which primarily serves high-net-worth clients.

Among the violations cited, the order states that Pekin Singer failed to conduct timely annual compliance program reviews in 2009 and 2010 and failed to implement and enforce provisions of its policies and procedures and code of ethics during this same period. The firm has been ordered to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $150,000.
Continue reading ›

SEC Issues Guidance Update on Cybersecurity

May 29, 2015 | Steve Parker

Last month, the SEC division of Investment Management released Investment Management Guidance in which it discusses a number of measures that investment advisers may wish to consider when addressing cybersecurity risks. This guidance is just the last in a long list of guidance and alerts issued by the SEC and other regulators as to the need for financial firms to improve their policies and procedures dealing with cybersecurity threats.

Among the recommendations made in the current IM are that firms:

• Conduct a periodic assessment of the nature, sensitivity and location of information, what types of cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities exist, what security controls and processes are currently in place, the impact that would occur in the event of compromise of information, and the effectiveness of the current structure confirms current structure for managing cyber security risks

Questions Surround Impact Of Labor Department Fiducuary Rule for Financial Advisers

May 22, 2015 | Steve Parker

In the wake of the re-proposal by the U.S. Department of Labor of its so-called “Fiduciary Rule,” there are a number of questions regarding how the rule if adopted, will impact those providing financial advice to employee benefit plans and other retirement plans including IRAs and ERISA plans in general. The most obvious impact of the rule would be to bring those not currently fiduciaries, including registered representatives of securities broker-dealers and the broker-dealer firms themselves, into the realm of fiduciary advice providers. The higher standard of care that would apply necessarily implies a need for more thorough disclosures of potential conflicts of interest, including incentivized compensation such as commissions, 12b-1 fees and the like.
Continue reading ›

LPL Financial Ordered by FINRA to Pay $11.7 Million

May 15, 2015 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) announced that it had fined LPL Financial (“LPL”) $10 million for lack of supervision in several areas of its operations, including sales of ETFs, variable annuities, REITs, and other complex products. In addition, FINRA found LPL failed to monitor trades and failed to report them to FINRA and failed to deliver more than $14 million in trade confirmations to customers. FINRA also ordered LPL to repay certain customers $1.7 million in restitution relating to the purchases of ETFs. Among FINRA’s findings were that the firm did not have a system that monitored how long customers were holding ETFs in their accounts, information that would be important in formulating advice as to whether the ETFs should have been purchased in the first place and how long the client should be recommended to hold the ETFs in their portfolios. Additionally, even though LPL had created policies limiting the concentration of ETFs in customer accounts, it failed to enforce the limits it had established and had not trained its registered representatives on the risks of those products.

With respect to variable annuities, FINRA found that in several instances, LPL had permitted said annuities to be sold without proper disclosure of surrender fees. Additionally, although LPL employed an automated surveillance system, that system failed to adequately review transactions commonly known as mutual fund “switches,” which involve a redemption of one mutual fund in order to purchase another.
Continue reading ›

NASAA Unveils Electronic Filing Depository

January 26, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

On December 15, 2014, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) launched an online electronic filing system to be used for issuers filling Form D, Rule 506 offerings with state securities regulators. The purposes of this new electronic filing depository (“EFD”) website, according to NASAA president William Beatty, are to provide an efficient and streamlined process for regulatory filings and to allow for increased transparency for investors.

Issuers seeking an exemption under Rule 506 must meet certain requirements in order to avoid having to register their public or private offerings with the SEC or state regulators. However, those issuers must still file a notice of exempt offering of securities, or “Form D,” with the SEC and state securities regulators. Instead of the longer and more tedious process of registering with securities regulators, Form D requires only limited information about the issuer, the investors, and the securities offered.
Continue reading ›

Investment Advisers and Social Media

January 2, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

As the use of social media becomes more prevalent and popular, businesses and financial institutions have begun to utilize the new methods of communication that social media can provide. Many businesses already maintain blogs or interactive accounts like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram as a method of marketing and interacting with clients or prospective customers. However, social media is a relatively new and constantly changing technology that can create unique and unforeseen risks to a businesses image and regulatory compliance policies. These risks are particularly acute for registered investment advisers.

In the broker-dealer world, FINRA has already adopted rules and issued regulatory notices designed to protect investors from false or misleading claims and representations and guide member firms on how to appropriately monitor their social media participation. Although not strictly applicable to pure RIAs, these rules should be viewed as best practices:

FINRA Rule 2210 and NASD Rule 3010 govern the supervision of a firm’s social media communications;

FINRA Rule 2111 requires that social media communications, if recommending a security, must be considered suitable for the targeted investors; and

Record keeping of all social media communications is required under FINRA Rule 4510.

KENTUCKY COURT HOLDS THAT INVESTMENT MANAGER IS “INVESTMENT ADVISER” UNDER KENTUCKY SECURITIES ACT

October 30, 2014 | Steve Parker

Mark Twain is alleged to have said, “When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Kentucky because everything happens there twenty years later than it happens anywhere else.”

That bit of “wisdom” is more than a bit unfair to Kentucky, but it has proven true in connection with investment adviser law. In an interesting judicial opinion earlier this year, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion that the federal courts reached over thirty years ago on essentially the same issue. The Kentucky Court held that an investment manager who was paid to manage the brokerage accounts of two clients was “an Investment Adviser” under the Kentucky Securities Act (“KSA”), even though he never discussed with or recommended securities transactions to the clients.The case demonstrates how concepts that are taken for granted and seem to be well-settled and beyond dispute by financial professionals, regulators and seasoned professionals in the investment adviser arena can sometimes lead to protracted and uncertain litigation.

The case is Lawrence Rosen v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Financial Institutions, et al.. At issue were enforcement charges by Kentucky’s Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) against one Lawrence Rosen (“Rosen”) who operated a sole proprietorship under the name Larry Rosen Company out of his home in Louisville, Kentucky. Rosen had entered into contracts with two clients under which Rosen would be compensated by payment of 10% of the gross proceeds of option sales, dividends, and interest received for all transactions that he made in the course of managing the accounts of the two clients. The contracts gave Rosen complete discretion over all securities traded in the accounts, meaning that he was not required to obtain any approval prior to implementing a transaction. Rosen performed both contracts by purchasing and selling securities in both clients’ accounts and by receiving the compensation as set forth in a contract. He conducted all these activities without registering under the KSA.
Continue reading ›

New Registration Requirements for Non-U.S. Advisers

February 15, 2012 | Steve Parker

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed on July 21, 2010, there have been significant reforms applicable to non-US advisers conducting business in the United States, including new registration requirements under the Advisers Act (the “Act”).

Non-U.S. advisers may need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to conduct future business within the United States. A non-U.S. adviser is defined in the Advisers Act as an investment adviser that:

Has no place of business in the United States;
Has a total of less than 15 U.S. clients and investors in private funds;
Has less than $25 million in assets under management associated with the U.S. clients and investors; and
Does not hold itself out generally as a U.S. investment adviser.

FINRA Wants Heightened Supervision of Complex Products

February 8, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a move that signals the need for heightened due diligence and supervision among financial advisory firms, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released Regulatory Notice 12-03 in relation to complex products last month. It is intended to guide firms to increase their supervision of activity involving complex products such as structured notes, reverse convertibles, inverse or leveraged exchange traded funds, hedge funds and securitized products. FINRA has already brought a number of enforcement actions against firms relating to complex products, charging inadequate supervision, unsuitable recommendations and misleading price sales.

Among the problems noted by FINRA is the uncertainty of how these products will behave in the market, as opposed to theoretical projections. The notice states, “Regulators have expressed concern about complex products because the intricacy of these products can impair the ability of registered representatives or their customers to understand how the product will perform in a variety of time periods and market environments, and can lead to inappropriate recommendations and sales.”

FINRA chose not to define a complex product in the notice due to the ever changing innovation in the marketplace; however, the notice states that “any product with multiple features that affect its investment returns differently under various scenarios is potentially complex.” The notice goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of examples of complex products. FINRA advises firms that are unsure whether a product is complex to err on the side of applying their procedures for enhanced oversight to the product.
Continue reading ›

Georgia Securities Commissioner Proposes Rule Amendments

February 3, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Georgia Commissioner of Securities has proposed twelve amendments to investment adviser and broker-dealer rules it promulgated late last year under the Georgia Uniform Securities Act. Although some of the amendments deal with housekeeping issues and typographical errors, several are substantive and of interest to industry participants and their counsel.

A proposed change to Rule 590-4-2-.03 would clarify that Rule 505 Form D filings under the Uniform Limited Offering Exemption must be made within 15 days after the first sale of securities in the state, rather than 15 days prior to the sale, as required by the rule as originally adopted.

The second proposed amendment applies to registration of securities by non-profit entities under Rule 590-4-2-.07, often used for so-called “church bonds.” Under the rule as originally adopted, the application of NASAA Statements of Policy relating to church bonds was permissive rather than mandatory: “The Statements of Policy … may be applied, as applicable, to the proposed offer or sale of a security …” and “may serve as the grounds for the disallowance of the exemption” provided by the Act. Under the amendment, the use of the NASAA Policies is now mandatory, the “may” having been replaced by “shall” in both cases.
Continue reading ›