RIA Compliance Blog

SEC Announces Plans to Examine Never-Before Examined RIAs

March 13, 2014 | Steve Parker

On February 20, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it is launching an initiative, through its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”), to conduct examinations of investment advisers that have been registered with the SEC for 3 or more years but who have never been examined. That same day, OCIE sent letters to all RIAs that have never been examined in order to provide them with information about the new initiative, which is being conducted under the National Exam Program (“NEP”).

The notice letter describes the two distinct approaches of the initiative as “risk assessment” and “focused reviews.” The former approach is designed to allow OCIE to obtain a better understanding of a particular RIA, and may include an overall review of the adviser’s activities with focus on the firm’s compliance program and disclosure documents and underlying facts. The latter, or “focus review” approach, includes a comprehensive risk-based examination of those advisers identified as having a higher risk area of business or operations. The focus-review examinations will focus on one or more of the firm’s compliance program, filings and other disclosure documents, marketing, portfolio management, and/or safety of client assets.

OCIE disclosed that not all RIAs receiving the letter would, in fact, be examined. Firms that receive the letter, however, would be well advised to prepare for an examination in any event, which usually means nothing more than maintaining and sharpening, where necessary, their policies and procedures so that they are adequate to assure compliance with SEC regulations, and contain clear and well-defined processes and responsibilities.
Continue reading ›

Public Solicitations on Rule 506 offerings

February 7, 2014 | Bryan Gort

Several Congressmen and an SEC Commissioner have independently urged the SEC to move forward with adopting proposed rules that impose additional requirements on public solicitations of Rule 506 offerings. At the same time that the SEC finalized its initial rulemaking on the subject last September, it proposed additional rules that would require filing Form D prior to any general solicitation and would impose advertising restrictions, among other things. We discussed that action and the proposed rules in two earlier posts.

Rule 506 was adopted as a safe harbor under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides that securities sold “by an issuer not involving any public offering” are exempt from registration under the Act. However, under Title II of the JOBS Act, passed in 2012, Congress required the SEC to adopt a rule allowing for the use of public solicitation in those offerings under conditions to be prescribed by the SEC. The initial rule adopted last September – requiring enhanced verification of accredited investor status – was the Commission’s first small step on the issue.

The comment period on the simultaneous rule proposal imposing additional requirements expired on November 4, 2013, but the Commission has taken no further action to date. On December 5, 2013, however, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar, speaking at a Consumer Federation of America conference, forcefully called upon the rest of the Commission to move forward in adopting the strengthened rules. “Every day that these proposals are not adopted is another day that investors face great harm. I’m frustrated because investors are going to be damaged” said Commissioner Aguilar. “Unfortunately, it’s been almost five months since those proposals have been issued for comment.”
Continue reading ›

SEC Enforcement Actions in 2013

January 27, 2014 | Bryan Gort

The SEC has released the results of the 686 2013 enforcement actions it filed in federal court, which resulted in $3.4 billion in sanctions against offenders. Of the $3.4 billion, securities violators were required to disgorge illegal profits of approximately $2.257 billion and pay penalties of approximately $1.167 billion. The chairperson of the SEC, Mary Jo White, stated, “A strong enforcement program helps produce financial markets that operate with integrity and transparency, and reassures investors that they can invest with confidence.”

The 2013 total sanction amount is 10 percent higher than 2012 and 22 percent higher than 2011. In 2013, the SEC pursued many categories of enforcement actions including:

– Broker-dealers (121)
– Delinquent Filings (132)
– Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (5)
– Financial Fraud/Issuer Disclosure (68)
– Insider Trading (44)
– Investment Adviser/Investment Co. (140)
– Market Manipulation (50)
– Securities Offering (103)
– Other (23)

The SEC highlighted certain enforcement programs on which they had focused in 2013 and programs that they will emphasize for the foreseeable future. The SEC is focused on making sure gatekeepers, people that have special duties to ensure that the interests of investors are protected, safeguard and protect investors’ rights.
Continue reading ›

SEC Proposes More Rules and Oversight for Public Rule 506 Offerings

January 3, 2014 | Bob Terry

On the same day that it released rule amendments allowing some Rule 506 offerings to be sold through public solicitation, the SEC proposed an additional set of rule amendments for those offerings. While the newly adopted rule primarily concerns verification of accredited investor status, the additional proposals relate more to the materials used by issuers to solicit those investors.

Currently, offerings under Regulation D require a Form D to be filed 15 days after the first sale; no prefiling is required. The proposal, however, would require that any offering to be sold using general solicitation would require that Form D be filed with the SEC 15 days prior to any solicitation. The SEC has also proposed a temporary rule, Rule 510T, which would go further and require all solicitation material to be filed with the SEC prior to its first use. Under the proposal, this temporary rule would expire in two years.

In addition, the proposed rule changes would require solicitation materials to include legends informing recipients of certain facts relating to the securities offered, such as the requirement that all investors must be accredited, that regulators have not approved the offering and that the securities have transfer restrictions. The proposal also extends to private funds the Rule 156 requirements currently relating to investment company advertising materials.
Continue reading ›

Trust, but Verify: Public 506 Offerings Finally Approved, With Conditions

December 30, 2013 | Bob Terry

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently adopted long-awaited rule changes required by the 2012 Dodd-Frank Act that will allow some offerings under Rule 506 to be offered using general solicitation. At the same time, the SEC proposed a set of additional changes that would further regulate this new type of offering.

Offerings under Rule 506, which provides one of the three operative safe harbor offering alternatives under Regulation D, have been prohibited from using any form of public solicitation since the rule’s inception in 1982. However, Congress responded to calls from industry seeking easier and less expensive ways to raise investment capital by creating the “crowdfunding” exemption and by loosening the public solicitation prohibition for Rule 506 offerings.

The rule amendment creates a new subsection 506(c), which provides that public solicitation is allowed if the offering is limited to accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify each investor’s accredited status. Although the rule does not enumerate specific verification procedures or even create a defined safe harbor, the issuing release describes a “principles-based” approach to verification and discusses a number of verification alternatives that may be considered adequate.
Continue reading ›

California Court Decision May Allow Brokers to Expunge Their Records More Easily

September 7, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a decision last month, the California Court of Appeals may have opened the door for brokers to bypass the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) rigid expungement rules in order to remove matters from their CRD records. Currently, brokers must abide by Rule 2080 in order to expunge their records. The FINRA rule allows for expungement only upon meeting one of three tests: (1) the claim is factually impossible, (2) the broker was not involved in the conduct or (3) the information is false. The rule states that a broker who seeks expungement “must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief.”

In its recent decision, the California Court of Appeals held that a court may expunge a broker’s CRD record in the interest of fairness and equity, regardless of FINRA’s rule. Edwin Lickiss filed a petition in the court in April 2011 seeking expungement of 17 customer complaints and a regulatory action from his CRD record claiming that they were old and irrelevant and negatively affected his profession. The customer complaints against Mr. Lickiss had resulted in total payments of $831,000, and Mr. Lickiss was required to personally pay a $5,000 settlement. FINRA objected to Mr. Lickiss’s expungement request, stating that he was trying to “sanitize his record and prevent regulators, brokerage firms and investors from learning of this history for what amounts to ‘time served.'” The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing the requirements of Rule 2080. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that it should have looked to equitable principles instead of FINRA rules.
Continue reading ›

States Report RIA Enforcement Cases Doubled in 2011

August 27, 2012 | Steve Parker

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) released preliminary numbers this month showing that the number of enforcement cases brought by state regulators doubled during 2011. During that year, states brought about 400 cases compared to 208 cases brought during 2010. This increase is due in large part to an expansion of state examinations as a result of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Dodd-Frank gave the states examination authority for some approximately 2,400 “mid-sized” advisers (firms with less than $100 million in assets under management) which are required to switch from SEC to state registration.

As a result of the switch, some former SEC firms that haven’t been examined in many years, if ever, by the SEC now find themselves subject to a state examination and can also look forward to being examined by the state more frequently.
Continue reading ›

Bachus SRO Bill Likely Dead This Year; Waters Introduces User Fee proposal

July 26, 2012 | Steve Parker

Proposed legislation designed to create a self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers may not be acted on during this Congressional session, according to its sponsor, Rep. Spencer Bachus (D-Ala.). Rep. Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said earlier this week that no consensus has developed regarding any proposal relating to enhancing investment adviser oversight and that, therefore, no action is imminent.

There has been increasing interest and legislative activity over the past several months relating to investment adviser examinations. While there is almost universal agreement that examination coverage should be increased, there is a sharp division among industry members, regulators and legislators about how to accomplish that goal.

Most observers agree that Rep. Bachus’s bill, if passed, would lead to the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) becoming the SRO for investment advisers. Adviser organizations have split over supporting the bill, with the Financial Services Institute (FSI) as a supporter, and the Investment Adviser Association (IAA) and the American Institute of CPAs strongly opposed. Other investment adviser organizations have also come out in opposition to the Bachus bill, as has the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA).
Continue reading ›

User Fee Supporters Gaining Momentum

June 26, 2012 | Steve Parker

According to an InvestmentNews poll, 58.7% of 293 advisers who responded to a recent survey support the option of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging user fees to defray the costs of increased examinations. This is an increase from a year ago when only 27.8% of 335 responding advisers supported the user fee approach. The poll also concluded that 74.7% of advisers said they oppose permitting the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) from becoming the self regulatory organization (SRO) for advisers.

The increased willingness of advisers to pay user fees suggests that there could be more support for the bill soon to be introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would authorize the SEC to charge user fees for advisers to cover or defray the costs of examinations. Rep. Waters’s bill would combat the SRO bill introduced by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Al) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
Continue reading ›

FINRA Issues Regulatory Notice Clarifying New Suitability Rule

June 20, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released a Regulatory Notice in May clarifying its new suitability rule, Rule 2111. The rule, which was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in November 2010, will be implemented on July 9, 2012. The Notice is intended to answer industry questions and provide guidance on the new rule.

According to FINRA, the new rule imposes the same obligations as the predecessor rule and related case law. It is intended to clarify and codify three main suitability obligations.

The first obligation is reasonable-basis suitability, which has two components: a broker must (1) perform reasonable diligence to understand the nature of the recommended security or investment strategy involving a security or securities, as well as the potential risks and rewards, and (2) determine whether the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors based on that understanding.

The second obligation is customer-specific suitability, in which the broker must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommendation of a security or investment strategy is suitable for the particular customer based on the customer’s investment profile.
Continue reading ›