RIA Compliance Blog

New SEC Co-Directors of Enforcement Identify Cyber Threats as the Greatest Threats to Financial Markets

October 24, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

Earlier this year, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton appointed Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin as co-directors of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. In an interview with Reuters, Avakian and Peikin expressed particular concern about cyber threats and how the SEC should make cybersecurity an enforcement priority. According to Peikin, “The greatest threat to our markets right now is the cyber threat… That crosses not just this building, but all over the country.”

The SEC has expanded of investigations relating to cybercrimes. There also appears to be an increase in incidents of hackers attempting to gain access to brokerage accounts. In response, the SEC has begun obtaining statistics about cybercrimes to assess market-wide issues. Continue reading ›

SEC Charges Investment Adviser with Distributing False Account Statements to Investors

October 20, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On October 2, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Tweed Financial Services, Inc. (“TFSI”), an investment advisory firm, and its proprietor, Robert Russel Tweed (“Tweed”). The SEC’s complaint alleges that TFSI and Tweed “defrauded their clients by misleading them about how their money had been invested and how poorly those investments were performing.” According to the SEC, TFSI and Tweed violated the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by deceiving their clients.

According to the SEC’s complaint, TFSI and Tweed formed Athenian Fund L.P., a private fund, in 2008. Twenty-four investors placed money in the Athenian Fund, and the fund raised approximately $1.7 million. The Athenian Fund’s private placement memorandum informed investors that money invested in Athenian Fund would be invested in a master fund that “had been established to trade stocks using an algorithmic trading platform developed by acquaintances of Tweed.” However, beginning in March 2010, Tweed transferred all of the Athenian Fund’s assets to another fund. In March 2011, TFSI and Tweed had the Athenian Fund loan $200,000 to a startup software company. The SEC alleged that these two ventures resulted in the Athenian fund losing approximately $800,000. Continue reading ›

Crowdfunding Portals – If You Build It, Will They Come?

October 18, 2017 | Steve Parker

If you build it, will they come? In the movie Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner’s character Ray Kinsella was promised by a mysterious Voice that if he built a baseball field in the middle of an Iowa cornfield, “they”- ghost baseball players which ultimately included his deceased father – would come. As the formerly cynical, suspicious sportswriter Terrance Mann (James Earl Jones) promised would happen, Ray’s faith in the Voice was rewarded. [1]

The same question might be asked about Crowdfunding Portals, although with decidedly less fantasy and romanticism and no sign of James Earl Jones: If you build it, will they come?

So far, 36 portals have registered with FINRA under Regulation CF, which went effective on May 16, 2016. Two registrations have already been withdrawn, leaving 34 portals in various stages of activity and levels of success.

FINRA Publishes Notice to Arbitrators and Parties Regarding Expungement Procedures

October 12, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

In September 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority updated a previously published Notice related to FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805, which “establish procedures that arbitrators must follow before recommending expungement of customer dispute information related to arbitration cases from a broker’s Central Registration Depository (CRD®) record.” When details are expunged from the CRD system, those details are permanently deleted and cannot be accessed by members of the general public, regulators, or potential broker-dealer employers. As a result, FINRA regards expungement as an extreme remedy that should only be exercised in circumstances in which one of the three “narrow grounds specified in Rule 2080” are met. These three grounds are a finding that the claim, allegation or information is factually unfeasible or obviously erroneous, a finding that a registered person did not participate in the alleged investment-related misconduct, or a finding that the claim, allegation, or information is untrue.

The updates to the Notice added instructions regarding expungement requests before an underlying arbitration case has concluded. According to FINRA, a broker is not permitted to file an expungement request pertaining to customer dispute information until after the underlying customer arbitration involving the information has concluded. Likewise, a broker is forbidden from filing an expungement request in a distinct, expungement-only case before an underlying customer arbitration ends. The updates to the Notice also provide that FINRA allows the Director of the Office of Dispute Resolutions to deny use of the FINRA arbitration forum if the Director concludes that the subject matter of the dispute is unsuitable, or that consenting to hear the matter would create a risk to the health and safety of the parties and arbitrators. The updates conclude by saying that the Director has decided to not allow requests for expungement to be heard before the underlying customer arbitrations conclude in order to keep results consistent and to ensure efficiency. Continue reading ›

Parker MacIntyre Publishes Whitepaper on Private Investment Fund Formation

October 3, 2017 | Steve Parker

Parker MacIntyre has recently published a whitepaper entitled Forming a Hedge Fund or other Private Investment Fund: A Top 10 List for the Entrepreneurial Fund Manager. If you are a money management or other financial services professional currently giving some serious thought to setting-out on your own as an entrepreneurial private investment fund manager, this publication is the right place to start. In it you will find a roadmap for entrepreneurial fund managers which aims to identify and discuss the top 10 areas of attention/concern relevant to a fund launch. Our whitepaper address such areas as:

Basic structure and formation considerations for managers, including compensation.
Service providers and partners needed for a successful start-up fund.

DOL Proposes Additional Extension of Fiduciary Rule Transition Period

September 12, 2017 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently published its proposal to extend the transition period of the Fiduciary Rule and delay the second phase of implementation from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. Currently only adherence to the impartial conduct standards is required for compliance with the Best Interest Contract (BIC) exemption during the transition period, as well as for certain other prohibited transaction exemptions issued or revised in connection with the Fiduciary Rule. Compliance with the full provisions of the BIC exemption and the other related exemptions is not required until the second phase of implementation of the Fiduciary Rule, which is currently set for January 1, 2018.

If adopted, the same requirements in effect now for compliance with the BIC exemption and related exemptions would remain in effect for the duration of the extended transition period. The DOL stated that the primary purpose for seeking to extend the transition period was to allow the DOL sufficient time to review the substantial commentary it has received and consider possible changes or alternatives to the Fiduciary Rule exemptions. The DOL noted its concern that without a delay in the applicability date, financial institutions would incur expenses attempting to comply with certain conditions or requirements of the newly issued or revised exemptions that are ultimately revised or repealed.

The DOL stated that it anticipates it will propose in the near future a “new and more streamlined class exemption built in large part on recent innovations in the financial services industry.” These recent innovations include the development of “clean shares” of mutual funds by some broker-dealers, which the DOL discussed approvingly in its first set of transition period FAQ guidance. “Clean shares” would not include any form of distribution-related payment to the broker, but would instead have uniform commission levels across different mutual funds that would be set by the financial institution. In this way, the firm could mitigate conflicts of interest by substantially insulating advisers from the incentive to recommend certain mutual funds over others. However, these types of innovations will take time to develop.

SEC Settles Charges with Investment Adviser Over Insufficient Disclosure of Fees

September 6, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On August 14, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease and Desist Proceedings (“Order”) against Coachman Energy Partners, LLC (“Coachman”), an investment adviser, and its owner, Randall D. Kenworthy (“Kenworthy”). According to the SEC’s Order, Coachman “failed to adequately disclose its methodology for calculating the management fees and management-related expenses it charged” to four oil and gas funds it managed. Coachman and Kenworthy submitted offers of settlement in conjunction with the Order.

The SEC found that from 2011 to 2014, Coachman acted as investment adviser to four funds specializing in oil and gas operations. Each fund was charged an annual management fee which made up 2 to 2.5% of the total capital contributions given to each fund as of the last day of the year. According to the SEC, however, Coachman’s offering materials and Forms ADV did not adequately disclose that the management fees were based upon year-end contributions. Rather, these documents implied that management fees and expenses were based upon “the average amount of capital contributions under management during the course of the year.” Therefore, the SEC alleged that Coachman and Kenworthy overbilled investors in the amount of $1,128,916.

The SEC also alleged that between 2013 and 2014, Coachman billed two of the funds management expenses based upon 1.5% of the total capital contributions given to these funds as of the last day of the year. However, the offering materials for these funds allegedly did not sufficiently inform investors that the funds would be obligated to pay Coachman for management expenses based on year-end capital contributions. Rather, these materials supposedly informed investors that management expenses were calculated using the average number of capital contributions under management for the whole year. The SEC alleges that this resulted in Coachman and Kenworthy overbilled clients in the amount of $449,294.

SEC Charges Investment Adviser with Misappropriating $2.8 Million From her Clients

September 1, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On August 23, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Sonya D. Camarco (“Camarco”), an investment adviser. The complaint alleges that Camarco “misappropriated over $2.8 million in investor funds from her clients and customers.” The complaint also alleges that Camarco used these funds to pay a variety of personal expenses, including credit card bills and mortgages.

As stated in the SEC’s complaint, Camarco was a registered representative and investment adviser representative of LPL Financial LLC (“LPL”) from February 2004 through August 2017. Under LPL’s policies, Camarco was not allowed to take money from client accounts unless the clients given her “specific and express” authority to do so. However, the SEC’s complaint alleges that in July 2017, LPL realized that Camarco had been part of numerous suspicious transactions involving her clients’ accounts from 2004 through 2017. Continue reading ›

SEC Charges Investment Adviser With Defrauding Clients Regarding Advisory Fees

August 29, 2017 | Elizabeth Dalziel

On August 22, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Jeremy Drake (“Drake”), an investment adviser. The complaint alleges that Drake lied to two clients, a high-profile professional athlete and his wife, regarding their annual management fees. The complaint also alleges that Drake used extensive measures to back up his deception, including sending “false and misleading emails” and “a number of fabricated documents.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, Drake’s alleged misconduct occurred when he was an investment adviser representative of HCR Wealth Advisers (“HCR”), a Los Angeles-based registered investment adviser. In September 2009, the clients entered into an “Investment Advisory Agreement” with HCR. The agreement, which was signed by Drake on behalf of HCR, provided that the clients would pay an annual management fee of 1% of the clients’ assets under management. Evidence shows that the clients paid a 1% management fee for the entire period when they were clients of HCR. Continue reading ›

Georgia Securities Commissioner Holds Second “Fairness Hearing” in Recent M&A Deal

August 25, 2017 | Steve Parker

The Georgia Securities Commissioner’s office recently held a fairness hearing pursuant to a request by two merging local banks seeking to facilitate their merger by forgoing the need to register newly issued securities at both the state and federal levels. The hearing, which is Georgia’s second in the last four years, was held on July 26, 2017. A copy of the Commissioner’s Order of Approval is available on the Georgia Secretary of State’s web site.

The fairness hearing process is a unique statutorily-codified transactional registration exemption which exists in a number of states—mostly those states having enacted some form of the model Uniform Securities Act of 2002. While not widely used historically, the fairness hearing process generally provides an exemption from registering securities at the state level for certain mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions where the state securities regulator passes on the “fairness” of the terms of the merger after conducting an evidentiary administrative hearing. What makes the fairness hearing process especially appealing is that the federal Securities Act of 1933 contains a sister provision at Section 3(a)(10), which provides a federal registration exemption for securities issued in certain M&A transactions where “the terms and conditions of such issuance and exchange are approved, after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions” by any state or federal governmental authority “expressly authorized by law to grant such approval.” This effectively means that a successful fairness proceeding conducted at the state level not only entitles the applicant to a state “Blue-Sky” registration exemption—but also a federal registration exemption as well.

In Georgia, the fairness hearing exemption is codified at Section 10-5-11(9) of the Georgia Uniform Securities Act of 2008, which exempts M&A transactions where the “fairness of the terms and conditions have been approved by the Commissioner after a hearing.” The Georgia Securities Commissioner’s office has promulgated administrative rules setting forth the roadmap for making an application pursuant to Section 10-5-11(9) as well as the conduct of the actual hearing. These rules, which were implemented in mid-2014, require, among other things, that the transaction have a significant nexus to the state of Georgia (residency of securities holders, place of business of the applicants, etc.), that the applicants submit a detailed application package containing specific transaction documentation, and that the applicants pay a filing fee and a processing fee and undertake to reimburse the Commissioner’s office for its out-of-pocket costs.