|

On March 8, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings (“Order”) against Voya Financial Advisors, Inc. (“Voya”), an SEC-registered investment adviser.  The Order, to which Voya consented, obligates Voya to pay disgorgement of $2,621,324, prejudgment interest of $174,629.78, and a civil money penalty of $300,000.

The SEC’s Order claims that Voya did not inform its clients that it was receiving compensation from a third-party broker-dealer and that these receipts created a conflict of interest.  Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) states that investment advisers are forbidden from participating in “any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client.”  Section 207 provides that investment advisers are not allowed to “make any untrue statement of a material fact in any registration application or report filed with the Commission, or to omit to state in any such application or report any material fact which is required to be stated therein.”  Finally, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Adviser’s Act compels investment advisers to “[a]dopt and implement written policies and procedures, reasonably designed to prevent violation” of the Adviser’s Act and the rules thereunder. Continue reading ›

|

In December 2016, then acting Chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Mary Jo White drafted a proposal that, if adopted, would enable third-parties, such as private sector organizations, to perform compliance exams of investment advisers.  Chairwoman White drafted this proposal in order to “increase SEC oversight of the approximately 11,800 registered investment advisers.”  In 2016, the SEC conducted evaluations of only 11% of all registered investment advisers.

However, Michael Piwowar, the current SEC Chairman, has expressed opposition to the proposal.  Piwowar claims that allowing third parties to conduct investment adviser exams would not increase the SEC’s efficiency because the SEC would still be required to monitor the third parties that it hires to conduct the exams.  He is also of the opinion that requiring SEC employees to conduct the exams would better enable the SEC to become aware of “trends in the industry.” Continue reading ›

|

On February 2, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Sentinel Growth Fund Management, LLC (“Sentinel”), an investment adviser, and its founder, Mark J. Varrachi (“Varrachi”).  The complaint alleges that from about December 2015 to November 2016, Varacchi and Sentinel stole $3.95 million or more from investment advisory clients.  The complaint asks that the District Court impose a permanent injunction against Varacchi and Sentinel, order them to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and order them to pay civil penalties.

Neither Sentinel nor Varrachi was registered as an investment adviser with the SEC or with any state regulatory authority.  However, the SEC charged both of them with violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).  The SEC found that Sentinel was “in the business of providing investment advice concerning securities for compensation,” which fits the definition of an investment adviser in Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act.  As for Varrachi, the SEC determined that because he owned and managed Sentinel, he too was an investment adviser.  As a result of meeting the definition of an investment adviser, Sentinel and Varrachi were subject to the Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions. Continue reading ›

|

In February 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (“FINRA”) published a Regulatory Notice asking for comment on proposed changes to FINRA Rule 2210, which governs communications with the public.  Under current Rule 2210, broker-dealers are not allowed to make communications that “predict or project performance, imply that past performance will recur or make any exaggerated or unwarranted claim, opinion or forecast.”  According to FINRA, the purpose of this rule is to prevent retail investors from relying on performance projections relating to individual investments, which tend to be deceptive.

However, FINRA has acknowledged that performance projections that are not based on how well an individual investment performed can be helpful to investors who are contemplating an investment strategy.  Furthermore, investment advisers are permitted to use performance projections in choosing an investment strategy for their clients, provided that the projections do not violate the Investment Advisers Act of 1940’s antifraud rules.  Therefore, FINRA proposed the amendments to Rule 2210 in order to allow broker-dealers to use projections in a way that benefits clients and to make the rules governing performance projections by broker-dealers and investment advisers more uniform. Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued new guidance regarding the Custody Rule and inadvertent custody of client assets in the form of a No-Action Letter on standing letters of authorization (SLOAs) and a Guidance Update on custodial contract authority. This guidance comes in the wake of the recent SEC Risk Alert identifying most frequent compliance issues found in examinations of registered investment advisers and listing custody as one of these most frequent compliance issues.

The Custody Rule, or Rule 206(4)-2, provides that it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 for a registered investment adviser to have custody of client assets unless certain requirements are met. One of these requirements is an annual surprise examination requirement, although this requirement does not apply if the investment adviser solely has custody as a result of its authority to make advisory fee deductions. Continue reading ›

|

On February 7, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) released a list of five compliance topics that are the most commonly identified topics “in deficiency letters that were sent to SEC-registered investment advisers.”  OCIE published this list in a National Exam Program Risk Alert in order to help advisers who are conducting their annual compliance reviews.

The first compliance topic was compliance with the Compliance Rule, Rule 206(4)-7, which requires an investment adviser to create and execute written policies and procedures that are reasonably tailored to prevent the investment adviser and its supervised persons from violating the Advisers Act and to detect potential violations.  The rule also requires an investment adviser to review the sufficiency of its policies and procedures at least annually and to appoint a chief compliance officer.  According to OCIE, common violations of the Compliance Rule include not having a compliance manual that is reasonably suited to the adviser’s method of doing business, failure to conduct annual reviews or annual reviews that did not cover the sufficiency of the investment adviser’s policies and procedures, failure to follow policies and procedures, and compliance manuals that are outdated.

The second topic that OCIE identified was compliance with the Advisers’ Acts rules on regulatory filings.  For example, Rule 204-1 provides that investment advisers must make amendments to their Form ADV on at least an annual basis, and the amendments must be made “within 90 days of the end of their fiscal year and more frequently, if required by the instructions to Form ADV.”  For investment advisers to private funds, Rule 204(b)-1 provides that an investment adviser must file a Form PF if the investment adviser is advising a private fund or fund with assets of $150 million or more.  Finally, Rule 503 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that issuers of private funds must file a Form D, and investment advisers usually file the Form D for their private fund clients.  OCIE determined that the most frequent violations of these rules were inaccurate disclosures on Form ADV Part 1 or Part 2A, late modifications to Form ADVs, faulty and late Form PF filings, and faulty and late Form D filings.

Continue reading ›

|

Last October, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amended rules in several areas designed to facilitate capital formation by small businesses, in large part by coordinating federal requirements with requirements of state “crowdfunding” statutes and rules adopted by approximately 35 states since 2011.

Specifically, the SEC amended Rule 504 of Regulation D to raise the offering limit from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, and created new Rule 147A, broadening the parameters under which intrastate offerings under existing Rule 147 could be conducted. Rule 147A, among other things, allows unlimited solicitation of offerings, including on the Internet, loosens requirements for issuers to qualify as “doing business in” a state, and allows corporate entities formed out-of-state to conduct intrastate offerings in the state where they primarily do business. Also, the previous requirement that intrastate offerings could only be offered to residents of a single state has been eliminated; the single-state restriction now considers only actual sales.

The effective date for the Rule 504 changes was January 20. However, the effective date of the new Rule 147A does not occur until April 20. Most states’ small business crowdfunding exemptions, whether adopted by statute or by rule, are conditioned upon compliance with Section 3(a)(11) of the 1933 Act or Rule 147. In order for issuers in those states to be able to fully utilize the new Rule 147A, those states will have to amend their exemptions to remove that condition.

Continue reading ›

|

On December 13, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) affirmed an Arizona Superior Court’s decision finding that Patrick Shudak, an investment adviser, violated the Arizona Securities Act by acting as an unregistered securities salesperson or dealer in connection with the sale of interests in a real estate venture.

From January 2008 through July 2009, Shudak sold membership units in a company known as Parker Skylar & Associates, LLC (PSA).  Neither Shudak nor PSA was registered as a securities salesperson or dealer under the Arizona Securities Act.  Shudak stated in PSA’s promotional materials that the money invested in PSA would “be used to purchase and develop real property.”  In reality, however, Shudak placed the money that investors put into PSA into his personal account, the personal accounts of others such as his girlfriend, and business accounts of other business that Shudak owned or had some affiliation with.

In December 2009, investors started to grow worried when Shudak stopped returning phone calls and replying to the investors’ demands for information.  As a result, Shudak was obligated to stop serving as PSA manager and to give up his PSA membership.  He subsequently filed for bankruptcy in April 2010.

Continue reading ›

|

On January 25, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“District Court”) against Strategic Capital Management, LLC (“SCM”), an investment advisory firm, and its owner, Michael J. Breton.  The complaint alleges that Breton, through SCM, garnered about $1.3 million by defrauding clients using what is known as a “cherry-picking” scheme.  The action follows a similar action brought by the SEC last October.

According to the SEC, cherry-picking occurs when an investment adviser “defrauds clients by purchasing stock and then waiting to see if the stock price goes up, or down, before deciding whether to keep the trades… or to put the trades into clients’ accounts.”  Cherry-picking typically involves the investment adviser allocating more profitable trades to its own accounts and allocating less profitable ones to client accounts.  It is a breach of fiduciary duty because it entails an investment adviser placing its interests above those of its clients.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that from about January 2010 through August 2016, Breton and SCM were investment advisers to numerous client accounts.  Breton, through SCM, bought public companies’ securities using a block trading omnibus account known as a “Master Account.”  Through this Master Account, Breton was permitted to make orders for both his personal accounts and his clients’ accounts.

Continue reading ›

|

On January 17, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued ten Orders Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings (“Orders”) against ten investment advisory firms.  In each of its Orders, the SEC alleges that each investment advisory firm gave money to campaigns for politicians who, if elected, would have the power to determine the choice of investment advisers to oversee government assets, and subsequently gave investment advisory services to public pension funds.  According to the SEC, these actions constituted violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).

Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1), commonly known as the Pay-to-Play Rule, provides that investment advisers who are registered with the SEC, foreign private advisers, and exempt reporting advisers are not permitted to provide “investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of a government entity made by the investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.”  This rule applies regardless of whether the investment adviser or covered person intended to sway the official.  According to the SEC’s Orders, five of the investment advisory firms were SEC-registered investment advisers, while the remaining five were exempt reporting advisers.  Thus, all ten of the investment advisory firms were subject to the provisions of Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1). Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2987 Clairmont Rd
#200
Atlanta, GA 30329
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design