|

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 ›

|

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 ›

|

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 ›

|

On December 22, 2014, the SEC announced a settlement with F-Squared Investments (“F-Squared”) in which F-Squared will pay a civil penalty and disgorgement for violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act by advertising falsely inflated performance numbers of its most successful exchange traded fund (“ETF”) investment strategy. Under the terms of the settlement, F-Squared, the largest U.S. marketer of index products using ETFs, agreed to disgorge $30 million and pay a $5 million penalty.

In October 2008, F-squared, along with its co-founder and former CEO, developed an investment strategy called AlphaSector. AlphaSector used data received from an algorithm to decide whether or not to buy or sell nine industry-focused ETFs. The algorithm was developed by an intern at a private wealth advisory firm, who told F-Squared’s CEO that it had been used before to manage the private wealth advisor’s client assets. The intern sent F-Squared’s CEO three separate data sets of hypothetical, back-tested weekly trends for each of the ETFs. This data was then used by an F-Squared employee to calculate hypothetical back-tested results for AlphaSector from April 2001 to September 2008.
Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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 ›

|

On November 17th, the Texas State Securities Board’s Office of Inspections and Compliance charged Mowery Capital Management, LLC (“Mowery Capital”) and one of its investment adviser representatives (collectively “Respondents”) with fraud for failing to disclose certain conflicts of interests, charging excessive fees, plagiarizing advertising material, and other material misrepresentations. The complaint requests that the state Securities Commissioner revoke Respondents’ registration with the state, levy an administrative fine, and issue a cease and desist order prohibiting any further fraudulent behavior.

When registering as a registered investment adviser, a Form ADV must be completed and filed with the appropriate securities authority. Part 2 of the Form ADV, or the “Brochure,” acts as the primary disclosure document for clients and requires the applicant to write in plain English general information about the business (i.e. types of services offered, fee schedule, business and educational background of employees), including any possible conflicts of interest the applicant may have.
Continue reading ›

|

Earlier this year, the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) sent a letter to registered investment advisers requesting information about their wrap fee programs and how their suitability for clients was determined. Most of the requested information centered around the possible misuse of wrap fee programs by advisers. OCIE examiners will want to see that adequate compliance procedures are in place, and that advisors conduct periodic reviews of their wrap fee programs to ensure that advisers are putting their clients’ interests first.

During an examination, advisers will need to disclose, among other things, the procedures and compliance policies governing their wrap fee programs, each wrap fee program used and its adviser, any brochures or marketing materials used to promote their wrap free programs, and what types of fees are covered in such programs. Advisers will also be asked to provide the SEC with its compliance policies for wrap fee programs. This may include how advisers monitor wrap accounts with high cash balances or accounts with low levels of trading, the oversight procedures of branch offices and representatives outside of those offices, best execution policies, and the initial and ongoing suitability reviews for wrap fee programs.
Continue reading ›

|

In a case that underscores the importance of maintaining thorough and contemporaneous records of compliance reviews of trading records of firm personnel for both broker-dealers and registered investment advisers, on October 15th, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Enforcement Division instituted an administrative proceeding against a former compliance officer at Wells Fargo Advisors for allegedly altering documents requested by the SEC during an insider trading investigation.

The Wells Fargo Advisors’ compliance officer was responsible for identifying suspicious trades by Wells Fargo personnel and determining, after a thorough analysis, or what was called a “look back review,” whether such trading was based on material non-public information. On September 2nd, 2010, the compliance officer began review on a set of trades in Burger King securities made by a registered representative of Wells Fargo Advisors, prior to an announcement that the private equity firm, 3G Capital Partners Ltd. (“3G Capital”), was to acquire Burger King at take it private. The findings contained within the compliance officer’s review confirmed that the registered representative and his customers bought Burger King securities ten days prior to the announcement. However, the compliance officer failed to make any additional inquiries into the trades and closed the review with “no findings.” The registered representative was later criminally charged in September of 2012, and subsequently was convicted of trading in Burger King securities on the basis of material non-public information.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced last week that it has charged Sands Brothers Asset Management, LLC and three of its officers with violating the custody rule as it relates to firms who manage funds in which their clients invest. Investment advisers who have custody, as defined by Rule 20642, must engage in certain “safekeeping practices.” If the adviser has custody by virtue of any reason other than the mere authority to deduct client fees from advisory accounts, one of the safekeeping requirements is that of obtaining an independent audit of fund assets. In the case of a private fund, that requirement can be met by the employment of an auditor approved by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board who audits and reports to shareholders, (i.e., investors in the funds), annually and reports to shareholders within 120 days from the end of the fiscal year.

In its recent enforcement action, the SEC enforcement division alleged that Sands Brothers had been late in providing investors with audited financial statements. According to the Order instituting administrative proceeding, Sands Brothers was 40 or more days late in distributing the financial statements for ten different private funds for the fiscal year 2010. In the following year, the financial statements for those same funds were between six and eight months past due. In 2012, the financial statements for those funds were distributed approximately 90 days late.
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