|

Investment advisers continue to get into regulatory trouble when it comes to failing to disclose conflicts of interest and related party transactions as required by both federal and state investment adviser law. Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated proceedings against Fenway Partners, a New York-based registered investment adviser which served as adviser to three private equity funds. The conflicts arose around two related entities: Fenway Partners Capital Fund III, L.P., an affiliated fund, and Fenway Consulting Partners, an affiliate largely owned by the executives and owners of Fenway Partners.

Fenway Partners and Fenway Consulting Partners were both owned and managed in large part by respondents Peter Lamm, William Smart, Timothy Mayhew, and Walter Wiacek. The fund in question, Fund III, was operated by an Advisory Board consisting of independent limited partner representatives, pursuant to its organizational documents. According to the SEC allegations, the respondents failed to disclose several conflicts of interest and related party transactions to both the Advisory Board of Fund III and their fund investors.
Continue reading ›

|

In a letter dated December 11, 2015, the Texas State Securities Board (“Board”) granted a no-action request by Managed Financial Service Corporation, Inc. (“MFSC”) that paves the way for a retiring investment adviser representative to receive continuing compensation after retirement. The Board confirmed that it would not commence or seek enforcement proceedings against either MFSC or a specified retiring investment adviser representative if certain procedures were followed. MFSC and its retiring representative requested the no-action letter in order to implement a plan under which the retiring representative would continue to receive compensation derived from the residual value of the work as an investment adviser for certain accounts.

The no-action was requested based on a concern, predominant in the investment adviser industry, that receipt by a retired adviser representative of ongoing advisory fees or a portion of advisory fees received by a successor adviser or firm would subject the retired representative to discipline for conducting business without registration.

The no-action relief granted by the Board is similar to the practice in the brokerage industry that has been codified in FINRA Rule 2040 (b) in which, prior to that date, was sanctioned by a FINRA no-action letter issued to Merrill Lynch in March 2012.
Continue reading ›

|

Although there is currently no requirement that registered investment advisers maintain anti-money laundering programs pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) or any of the other acts that apply to certain financial institutions, that may change if the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes and Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) adopts a rule proposed earlier this year. Specifically, the proposed rule would subject investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to formal AML compliance program adoption and reporting requirements. The rule, if adopted, would expand the current definitions of “financial institutions” to cover SEC-registered advisers. The rule would require compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and the USA PATRIOT Act, resulting in an adviser being required to establish AML compliance programs, file suspicious activity reports, and keep records relating to AML activity, among other things.

Currently, most registered investment advisers do adopt policies relating to AML and suspicious activity reporting procedures, even though they are not so required by law or regulation. In a sense, it has become a “best practice” to do so. Practically speaking, because all investment advisers conduct activity on behalf of their clients through qualified custodians, broker-dealers, and other financial intermediaries that are expressly covered by the PATRIOT Act, the BSA and other laws, AML, the intermediaries who partner with investment advisers usually require such advisers to have AML and suspicious activity reporting programs or procedures in place as a means of aiding the broker or other primarily responsible firm fulfilling its obligations.
Continue reading ›

|

On April 13, 2015, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) adopted a model rule concerning business continuity and succession planning for investment advisers. The model rule is intended as guidance for state-registered investment advisers to determine how to develop succession planning policies and procedures. Investment advisers without business continuity and succession plans face serious risks if the adviser is temporarily or permanently unable to service its clients. Included with the model rule are scenarios to help illustrate when business continuity plans are important for an investment advisory firm and many questions to help determine how to craft the plan properly.

Many different types of disasters can strike an investment advisers’ business. From naturally occurring disasters such as hurricanes and snow storms to unnatural disasters like terrorist attacks or a sudden death, it is important to have thought about and created a succession plan to ensure that your clients’ interests are not harmed. A business continuity and succession plan allows the adviser to safeguard critical business functions so that your firm can continue as long as needed when a disaster strikes.
Continue reading ›

|

In August of this year the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) settled an administrative proceeding that related to statements an investment adviser made during the SEC’s on-site examination. The adviser at issue, Parallax Capital Partners, LLC, is a registered investment adviser that focuses primarily on mortgage-backed bonds and other similar fixed income securities. Parallax also advises a private fund in addition to providing advisory services to individuals and other entities. During an examination of Parallax that the SEC conducted in April 2011, the firm’s Chief Compliance Officer represented to the examination staff that he had performed and documented the annual compliance review required by Adviser’s Act Rule 206(4)-7 for the year 2010. The CCO further represented that the review and documentation had been conducted in February 2011, and provided the examination staff with a memorandum purportedly documenting the compliance review for 2010 that stated: “This memo documents that I have performed the review and reported significant compliance events and material compliance matters.”

The SEC examination staff was able to determine, by a review of the metadata attached to the compliance memorandum, that it had not been drafted in February 2011 as the CCO had represented, but instead that it had been created and completed in April 2011, just three days prior to the onsite examination and after Parallax received notice of the impending examination.
Continue reading ›

|

On September 22, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced an important cybersecurity enforcement action that has broad implications to registered investment advisers. In a Settlement Order, the SEC found R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management, a St. Louis-based investment adviser, “willfully violated” the Safeguards Rule. From September 2009 through July 2013, the firm stored unencrypted, sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”) of clients and others on its unencrypted, third party-hosted, web server.

In requiring that brokers-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers guard against cybersecurity breaches, the SEC has relied on its authority under Sections 501, 504, and 505 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, to create the new regulations. The “Safeguard Rule” is Rule 30(a) of Regulation S-P (17 C.F.R. § 248.30(a)). Enforcement actions initiated by the SEC relating to computer security are often grounded in violations of the Safeguard Rule.
Continue reading ›

|

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 requires that investment advisers exercise a fiduciary responsibility toward clients. Traditionally, this duty extends to protecting clients against fraud and abuse. But how does this fiduciary duty change when faced with an aging population? It’s no secret: the average age of the American population is increasing. Baby Boomers dominate the world of investment management. In 2008 the SEC staff reported Boomers hold 50% of total U.S. household investment assets. This poses special duties and challenges on today’s registered investment advisers and broker-dealers.

NASAA (the North American Securities Administrators Association) has as of September 29th 2015, proposed a new model law that incorporates best broker-dealer and investment adviser practices for dealing with suspected financial exploitation of seniors and diminished capacity investors. That proposal is available here.
Continue reading ›

|

Parker MacIntyre attorneys Steve Parker and Bryan Gort attended the 2015 annual conference of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) held last week in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As usual, the conference provided valuable guidance and updated information on areas of importance to state-registered investment advisers, as well as federal notice filed broker-dealers and SEC registered investment advisers.

Of interest to state-registered investment advisers are proposed amendments to Part 1B of Form ADV that would attempt to capture an RIA’s use of social media and information on the use of third-party compliance professionals.

NASAA also presented the findings of its 2015 coordinated investment adviser examination review, compiled from the results of over 1100 investment adviser examinations. Once again, books and records deficiencies was the leading category, with 78% of all examined entities having deficiencies in that area. Within that category the failure to maintain adequate client suitability data was the leading deficiency, accounting for 10% of the deficiencies noted within the books and record category.
Continue reading ›

|

On August 5th, 2015 in a decision that has implications for registered investment advisers and broker-dealers, SEC judge Cameron Elliot ruled on an enforcement action regarding the extent of liability for Compliance Officers in In the Matter of Judy K. Wolf, available here. Sanctions were not imposed against Ms. Wolf due to the violation being “decisively outweighed by the remaining public interest factors: egregiousness, degree of harm, and deterrence.” However, it was found that Wolf purposefully lied about her records violation.

In In the Matter of Judy K. Wolf, Judge Elliot stated he believed the further sanction against Wolf would be pursuit of “the low-hanging fruit” that is compliance officers.
Continue reading ›

|

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on Sept. 15, 2015 issued Risk Alert to announce its new focus on cybersecurity of securities firms and registered investment advisers. Cybersecurity programs of securities firms had best be strengthened, otherwise they may be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny according to the Risk Alert, which is meant to serve as helpful guidance for firms that need to create or heighten a cybersecurity program. The National Exam Program in 2014 conducted cybersecurity examinations on 106 securities firms. As a follow-up to the 2014 SEC security examinations The Risk Alert highlights certain additional measures the national registered entities need to be aware of when the SEC is conducting examinations.

A sample examination request with a list of information that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations may review in conducting examinations of registered entities regarding cybersecurity matters may be viewed here.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2302 Parklake Dr NE
#420
Atlanta, GA 30345
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 © 2025, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design